Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

Patients (Clinical Information)

Mr. John Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the senior administrative medical officer of the Manchester Regional Hospital Board has instructed medical officers at venereal disease clinics in the area that information about patients attending the clinics should not be disclosed to medical officers of health, even if requested for purposes of contact tracing; and, in view of the fact that medical officers of health in all parts of the country have always had free access to information about patients, which they have treated with confidence, if he will take steps to have this instruction withdrawn forthwith.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): The Regional Hospital Board has rightly taken this step to ensure that the statutory regulation about secrecy of V.D. treatment is scrupulously observed.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that in the interests of an efficient health service it is vital that there should be the same free access to information by medical officers of health which they have had in the past not only for the essential purpose of contact tracing, but in order to ensure that proper after-care attention can be given to children whose mothers are known to have suffered from this disease?

Mr. Bevan: It is not necessary for the purposes that my hon. Friend has in mind that there should be a disclosure of clinical details to medical officers of health. The patient's own doctor is, of course, made aware of all the circumstances.

Mr. Lewis: How can health visitors deal with these matters unless they know the facts of the case?

Mr. Bevan: The man's own doctor will be aware of all the facts of the case, and as the man's own doctor is a family physician, he will be concerned about the welfare of the children.

Mr. Lewis: This is very unsatisfactory.

Mr. J. Lewis: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the senior administrative medical officer of the Manchester Regional Hospital Board has advised the secretary of the Bolton Hospital Management Committee that if medical officers of health ask for information about patients who are discharged from hospital and are in need of aftercare, only the address need be given; and, in view of the fact that after-care attention is often necessary and that children classed as handicapped are entirely the responsibility of the local authority, if he will take steps to cancel this instruction.

Mr. Bevan: I understand that the Board has encouraged management committees to co-operate fully with local authorities but has rightly advised them not to disclose to them clinical details of patients which should generally be treated as confidential.

Mr. Lewis: Will the Minister bear in mind that under the National Health Act there is a responsibility on local authorities in respect of after-care work, and to refuse medical officers of health any information other than the address is to reduce them to the level of laboratory assistants which will have a deleterious effect on the whole health service?

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is attributing a status to the medical officers of health which they themselves do not claim. He ought not to refer to them in such terms. It is undesirable that there should be a general access to clinical details of patients' conditions. It is only necessary for that to be done where tracing is absolutely essential.

Nurses (State Register)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Health if he will give an undertaking that the printing, publishing and placing on sale of the State


Register of Nurses shall not be abolished as advised by the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, the governing body of the nursing profession.

Mr. Bevan: This matter is dealt with in the Bill which has now been introduced in another place.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Minister answer my Question? Is he aware that nurses value registration?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will look at the Bill which is being introduced in another place he will find his Question answered there.

Sir W. Smithers: I asked for an answer to my Question. Can I have it?

Mr. Bevan: I have given it.

Hospitals (Administrative Staffs)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Health how many hospitals have come under the jurisdiction of his Department since the National Health Service Act came into operation; how many persons in such hospitals are now paid for doing work which was previously done voluntarily; and what is the total cost of employing such persons.

Mr. Bevan: Two thousand, eight hundred and thirty-five hospitals and convalescent homes were transferred to the Minister on the appointed day. I regret that the information asked for in the second and third parts of the Question is not available.

Mr. Marlowe: But does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he ought to get such information in view of the fact that a return to the voluntary system might offer quite considerable opportunities for economy in this field?

Mr. Bevan: The voluntary system of administration has not been departed from. The voluntary system is being administered by 10,000 to 11,000 devoted voluntary workers.

Mr. Marlowe: But is not the Minister also aware that there are many instances of people who were doing voluntary work in such positions as treasurers to hospitals who are now getting salaries of £1,400 or £1,500?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and learned Member is quite inaccurate—

Mr. Marlowe: No.

Mr. Bevan: No one who does the work of treasurer alone is having any salary whatever.

Mr. H. Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend say how many people are now getting into hospitals who could not get in before because they did not know the right person?

Mr. Bevan: A very large number.

Opticians (Inquiry)

Mr. David Renton: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that, owing to the fact that anyone may practise as an optician, even though he has no qualifications for doing so, members of the public have, on occasions in recent years, been seriously defrauded; and whether he will introduce legislation to enable him to require the registration of opticians.

Mr. Bevan: It has been decided to set up a committee to inquire into this question. The precise form which the inquiry is to take is not yet settled but I hope to be able to make a further announcement shortly.

Mr. Renton: Would the Minister kindly consider the possibility of warning the public against the activities of certain bogus opticians pending the findings of that committee and taking action upon them?

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will bring to my notice any bogus opticians he has in mind, I will certainly do so.

Medical Practices (Disposal)

Dr. Segal: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether he is aware that medical practices are still being advertised by private agencies for sale and purchase; and what steps he proposes to take to put an end to this practice;
(2) whether he can now make arrangements to establish official agencies for the transfer of medical practices, partnerships and assistantships.

Mr. Bevan: There is no prohibition on the sale and purchase of purely private practices and I see no objection to such


transactions being handled by private agencies. The transfer of practices, and the introduction of new partners and assistants, in the National Health Service, are already controlled by the appropriate official bodies.

Dr. Segal: Is my right hon. Friend aware that practices are being advertised which include as part of their income the income from the National Health Service? And does he not regard it as highly undesirable that the professional careers of duly qualified medical men should be left in the hands of these commercial agencies?

Mr. Bevan: If my hon. Friend will let me have information about such advertisements, I will have inquiries made.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Private Building (Ratio)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that there are private builders with labour and materials available ready and willing to build houses cheaper and quicker than local authorities, but they cannot obtain the permits; and if he will now alter the ratio of private building allowed.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. Builders who are willing and able to build houses should be able to do so for private owners possessing building licences, for local authorities under contract or for local authorities under special arrangements set out in the circular of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware that the firm about which I am thinking has the plant and the men and can build houses up to the standard required by the Government in a very short time and do it £100 cheaper than the local authorities can do it? Yet the firm is not allowed to do this because of the absurd ratio.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is in error. The Girdwood Committee could not find any evidence that private building was cheaper than building by local authorities.

Mr. Williams: But I have given the Minister evidence. He has had letter after letter.

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member has evidence, I should advise him to send it to the committee.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is it not the case that the firm can build these houses if it is willing to sell them to the local authority for letting to people on the priority lists?

Mr. Bevan: I have already explained that the local authorities have power under the circular I have sent them to enable local private builders to build houses for sale to local authorities.

Empty Houses, London

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Health if he will now publish a list showing the number of empty houses in each metropolitan borough according to his recent survey.

Mr. Bevan: I have nothing as yet to add to the reply I gave the hon. Member on 15th March.

Mr. Platts-Mills: When the information is forthcoming, will the right hon. Gentleman use it with the object of again considering the plan for pooling the accommodation in London so that the desperately pressed boroughs, of which Finsbury is typical, may have a chance of access to the increased accommodation in lordly and spacious areas like Maryle bone, Chelsea, and Westminster?

Mr. Bevan: When the information is available, it will be examined and the distribution of the empty houses over the different parts of London will be taken into account. The hon. Member knows that there is in Committee upstairs a Bill which is designed to enable large houses to be converted into flats in order to provide more accommodation.

Oral Answers to Questions — WATER SUPPLIES

Farm, Gilberdyke

Mr. Odey: asked the Minister of Health what progress has now been made regarding a supply of water for Mr. R. J. Gibson, of Oxmardyke Farm, Oxmardyke Lane, near Gilberdyke, Yorkshire, who has been pressing for a water supply over an extended period.

Mr. Bevan: A local inquiry into coordinated schemes submitted by the Beverley, Howden and Pocklington Rural District Councils will, it is expected be


held at an early date. The extension to Oxmardyke Lane is included in these schemes.

Mr. Odey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been considerable delay in formulating these schemes and bringing the matter to a conclusion, and will he expedite this inquiry as much as possible?

Mr. Bevan: Yes, Sir, but I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that a great deal of delay is due to the intricacies of the Water Act of 1945.

Emergency Schemes

Mr. Baker White: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the growing shortage of water, he has sent instructions to local authorities to prepare schemes for water rationing during the summer months.

Mr. Bevan: No, Sir; but the general position is being watched, and water undertakings are well aware of the steps that must be taken should there be any shortage.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Students (Loans)

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Education what action has he taken to abolish the practice of certain local education authorities of making loans to students instead of giving assistance by way of grant.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): Local education authorities are fully aware from a Circular issued in 1945 of my Department's objections to the practice of making loans, and the number of authorities doing so has greatly diminished. I have refused to approve new arrangements for initiating or extending the practice. If as I expect there is in the near future a general review of local authorities arrangements this will give me an opportunity to press for the practice to be abandoned.

Mr. Chetwynd: But is my right hon. Friend satisfied that those local authorities still carrying on this practice are paying adequate attention to his circular?

Mr. Tomlinson: I think so. I have drawn their attention to it on three occasions.

Independent Schools (Inspection)

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Minister of Education if his attention has been directed to the proceedings which took place before the magistrates at Eccleshall, on 7th April, at which two male persons, without academic or other qualification, were found to be unfit to have care of pupils; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: asked the Minister of Education whether his attention has been drawn to the conditions prevailing at a private school known as Horsley Hall in the county of Stafford, owned and managed by Mr. Copping, recently convicted at Eccleshall in the same county, of being an unfit person to have the care of children; and what instructions as to the use of powers of inspection or supervision have been issued with a view to the prevention of similar cases.

Mr. Tomlinson: I have recently made arrangements, of which particulars are given in a circular which I am sending the hon. Members, for the inspection of all independent schools under Section 77 of the Education Act, 1944. I understand that there is an appeal pending on the particular case mentioned in the Question, and I would therefore prefer not to make a statement at present.

Sir P. Hannon: May I ask this of the Minister, notwithstanding the appeal, that he will take such measures as are possible in the Ministry of Education to prevent any schools operating in similar circumstances in the future?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, Sir.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to ensure that the information contained in the circular which he is sending to the hon. Member becomes available to other hon. Members of this House?

Mr. Tomlinson: Yes, I will do that.

Captain Crookshank: Has the right hon. Gentleman any reason to suppose that there are any other cases at all similar to this, or is this unique?

Mr. Tomlinson: I would not like to say. I have only just taken the power to inspect, and we are inspecting all independent schools. It is a very big job.


My object would be that those which are brought to my notice of which there is any suspicion at all, should be taken first.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is this inquiry also to be conducted into schools like Eton and Harrow, where there are undesirable cases of corporal punishment?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

Molasses (Price)

Mr. Crawley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much of the £4,783,000 profit he hopes to make on molasses for the year 1949 is the result of a reduction in the price given to the West Indian producer.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. Bottomley): My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The figure he quotes is not a trading profit. It is the estimate of the excess of cash receipts over expenditure in connection with the purchase and sale of molasses, etc., during the year 1949–50, as shown in the Civil Estimates published recently.

Mr. Crawley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the price in the West Indies has been cut by half, and is havng a serious effect on the sugar producers in the West Indies?

Mr. Crawley: asked the President of the Board of Trade how much molasses he intends to buy from dollar sources during 1949; and at what price.

Mr. Bottomley: It would not be in the national interest to give this information.

Mr. Crawley: Is my hon. Friend aware that by withholding this information, the worst possible impression is being created in the West Indies, which are absolutely dependent upon the sugar industry for their livelihood? Will he urge on his right hon. Friend to cease treating this as a purely economic question and to consult with his other right hon. Friend, the Colonial Secretary, to see if they cannot arrive at some better arrangement?

Mr. Bottomley: Yes, I will look into that matter.

Mr. Marlowe: Could the hon. Gentle-say the reasons why it is not in the

national interest to disclose this information?

Mr. Bottomley: Trading difficulties chiefly, and other national interests.

Control of Exports (Eastern Europe)

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what extent imports of grain, feedingstuffs, timber and other necessities from the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and other countries of Eastern Europe are likely to be diminished by the restriction on exports to such countries announced recently.

Mr. Bottomley: As stated by my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury on 7th April, it is not expected that the control of exports of certain classes of goods for security reasons will restrict the scope for mutually useful trade between ourselves and Eastern Europe.

Mr. Driberg: Will my hon. Friend always bear in mind that the recovery of this country and Western Europe, and our independence by 1952, depend in part on an intensification rather than on any diminution of this trade?

Mr. Bottomley: indicated assent.

Mr. Driberg: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will publish in HANSARD a list of the main exports, especially required by the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics and other countries of Eastern Europe, which will not be affected by the restriction on exports to such countries announced recently.

Mr. Bottomley: It is not practicable to furnish this information, since I cannot surmise what United Kingdom goods are especially required by the Governments of Eastern European countries.

Mr. David Eccles: Could the Minister say whether the other O.E.E.C. countries are adopting the same commercial policy in regard to these lists of prohibited goods, or are we doing it on our own?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot say precisely what is happening but, of course, there is a general understanding.

Mr. Piratin: But could the Minister make an estimate based on the


needs of the Soviet Union as indicated in the Anglo-Russian Trade Agreement of last year? Their needs will probably be similar now, and he could possibly make an estimate on that. Would he do so?

Mr. Bottomley: No. We are discussing these matters with the Soviet Trade Delegation at the moment, and they have said they will let me know what they require.

Mr. Eccles: Referring to the answer the Minister gave me, is it not absolutely essential that there should be a common policy?

Mr. Bottomley: There is a desire for a common policy, but each sovereign Power has its own responsibilities and must accept them.

Anglo-Soviet Agreement

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the position now regarding the talks relating to the extension of the Anglo-Soviet Trade Agreement of 1947.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend and I met the Head of the Soviet Trade Delegation on 12th April and had preliminary discussions about the principles on which a one-year Trade Agreement might be based.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does my hon. Friend think that the President of the Board of Trade appreciates that if he gives way to the pressure now being exerted from the opposite side of this House, and from America, to diminish, even to end our trade with the Soviet Union, he gives a guarantee that Great Britain will be engulfed in a major economic disaster, with mass unemployment and all the misery attendent upon it, and that that position is even now approaching our country?

Mr. Bottomley: It is not our side alone that is holding up these negotiations. We are anxious to get an agreement.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the statement made by the Chancellor in introducing his Budget about the baffling dollar deficit, would not the Minister help the Chancellor to get out of his mess by developing alternative sources of supply with the Soviet Union and the

Eastern countries of Europe? It is the only solution of the baffling problem of the dollar deficit; it is not a rouble deficit.

Mr. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend and I have been trying for many months to get these supplies.

Germany (Discussions)

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the President of the Board of Trade what progress has now been made in the discussions with the Joint Export/Import Agency regarding British trade with the Bizone of Germany; and when it is expected that a bilateral trading agreement will be concluded.

Mr. Bottomley: Detailed discussions on trade during the first half of this year were concluded on 8th March, and I am sending to the hon. Member a copy of a note published in the "Board of Trade Journal" of 26th March on the results. General discussions on trade during the second half of this year and the first half of 1950 were held at the end of March and will be resumed, in further detail, in May or June.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Does not my hon. Friend accept this long delay in getting us any right to trade with Western Germany as certain proof that the Americans, holding Western Germany as a puppet, are intending to use her industrial potential as a weapon to knock Britain clean out of the European market?

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir.

Japanese Wool Production (Subsidy)

Mr. Piratin: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the United States of America is subsidising Japanese wool production to the extent of 20 per cent. on yarn and 40 per cent. on cloth; and, in view of the effect of this, in addition to the low wages paid to the workers, on the competitive price on the world market, whether he will immediately take up this matter with the United States Government.

Mr. Bottomley: I understand that new yen exchange rates recently announced have brought an end to the concealed exchange subsidies to which the hon. Member refers. The new rates will, I


understand, give a small subsidy to Japanese exports of woollen cloth but it is too early to say what the effect of this subsidy will be.

Mr. Piratin: Why cannot the hon. Gentleman give a straight answer to a very straight question: Are the Americans
subsidising Japanese wool production to the extent of 20 per cent. on yarn and 40 per cent. on cloth,
as the Question asks? Is that the case, for a well known authority on the matter in this country stated it only last week? If that is the case, what steps does the Minister propose to take in the matter of this unfair competition?

Mr. Bottomley: I thought I had already indicated that in my answer. With regard to any further consideration, that will have our attention and we shall make representations, if necessary.

Film Industry

Mr. Blackburn: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to ensure the fulfilment of the film quota, in view of the widespread closing of film studios.

Mr. Bottomley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given him on 10th February on this subject.

Mr. Blackburn: Is the Minister aware that large numbers of studios are now vacant and that we are losing a great many dollars as a result of the accumulated sterling; and will the Minister be good enough, in those circumstances, to recommend to the Cabinet that we should take over the vacant studio space and let it to co-operatives of producers, actors and directors so that we may be able to fulfil the quota?

Mr. Bottomley: I cannot give an affirmative answer to that question, but I can say that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has the matter very much in hand.

Newsprint

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade why the Government are not passing on immediately to the newsprint mills the benefit of the reduction in the price of pulp.

Mr. Bottomley: The reduced prices at which pulp is being bought have only

become effective in April. As the hon. Member was informed on 24th February our selling prices are fixed from time to time at levels which should enable us to dispose of our stocks without loss.

Mr. Hurd: Is it not a fact that the true price of pulp in a free market today is £18 a ton to the mills, whereas the Government are charging £26 10s. a ton, and does not this mean that they have bought too much pulp at too high a price?

Mr. Bottomley: We should have had the argument the other way round if we had not bought sufficient.

Mr. Vane: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it is impossible to buy pulp at the reduced price or simply that the Government were not willing to buy it?

Mr. Bottomley: We can buy at reduced prices and are willing to do so.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many tons of pulp for paper-making are held in stock by the Government; and how long he estimates these stocks will last at the current rate of consumption.

Mr. Bottomley: The total stocks of woodpulp at 5th March amounted to 309,000 tons or about 14 weeks' consumption at the current rate.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say whether there is any danger of pulp deteriorating in store if kept for several months?

Mr. Bottomley: Not without notice.

Mr. Eccles: In view of this large stock which the Minister says he has, why spend dollars on buying Canadian newsprint when we can spend those dollars on getting food or feeding grains from Canada, especially if it be true that this pulp will deteriorate? Surely, this is bad business.

Mr. Hurd: asked the President of the Board of Trade to what proportion of their capacity the newsprint mills are now working; and what proportion of the licensed output this represents.

Mr. Bottomley: The rate of production in March (exclusive of certain special arrangements for export) was 51 per cent. of pre-war against a general quota of 50 per cent. for the current licensing period.


I am not aware that any particular change in the rate of production has taken place in April.

Mr. Hurd: Does not this really show that it is high time the Government got out of this business altogether? When do they intend to do so?

Waste Paper Collection

Mr. Niall Macpherson: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered information sent to him to the effect that voluntary organisations who are assisting in the collection of waste paper are now being told that no more salvage is required on account of imports of woodpulp; and what is his policy with regard to the collection of waste paper and in particular to the encouragement of voluntary efforts for its collection.

Mr. Bottomley: Voluntary organisations who are assisting in the collection of waste paper are not being advised by the Board of Trade in the sense suggested by the hon. Member, although I understand that one waste paper merchant has on his own initiative communicated with one such organisation. I hope that the voluntary organisations will continue to co-operate with local authorities in order that collections of waste paper may be maintained and, in this connection, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. P. Wells) on 7th April.

Mr. Macpherson: Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that once these voluntary activities are carried on and maintained, the paper they collect, will, in fact be taken up and used, and that the stocks at present being accumulated will not interfere with this activity in future once stocking up can be started again?

Mr. Bottomley: I agree that this is a matter of co-operation between the local authorities and the voluntary organisations.

Rifle Clubs (Ammunition)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will permit the import of £100,000 worth of American Remington and Winchester.22 rifle ammunition for the use of small bore rifle clubs in Britain.

Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. I am informed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply that while there has been a temporary falling off of deliveries to rifle clubs, their requirements in 1949 should be substantially met by home production and token imports.

Major Legge-Bourke: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that the home production is of a quality very far below what it used to be before the war, and can we have an assurance that, if he will not allow imports to come in of the nature asked for in the Question, he will facilitate the making of I.C.I. "All Range" ammunition, which was what was required before the war?

Mr. Bottomley: The Ministry of Supply are looking at this matter with a view to seeing if supplies can be given.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the point put to him by my hon. Friend, that if he cannot allow the import of American ammunition, he will use his influence to see that really first-rate ammunition is produced here? This is so important for defence purposes.

Mr. Bottomley: I should have thought that all British production was first class—

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, it is not.

Mr. Bottomley: —and that if supplies are available there is no need for these imports from the dollar area.

Mr. Baker White: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that important training is being held up by the shortage of ammunition?

Major Legge-Bourke: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a defence aspect to this question and that if he discourages small-bore rifle clubs it will make this country less prepared.

Mr. Bottomley: I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that we are not anxious to discourage them.

International Trade Fair, Barcelona

Sir P. Hannon: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has had under consideration the provision of facilities to enable British manufacturers


to exhibit at the Industries Fair at Barcelona, which takes place during the month of June; and if negotiations are in process to provide accommodation for British exhibitors who desire to exhibit at that Fair.

Mr. Bottomley: The usual facilities are available to manufacturers who wish to exhibit at the Barcelona International Trade Fair. Negotiations for space take place between the exporter or his Spanish agent and the Fair authorities without the necessity for intervention by His Majesty's Government.

Sir P. Hannon: Are the Board of Trade taking any steps at all to advertise this exhibition and to offer facilities to those who would like to exhibit British goods there; and would not this help to bring us closer to Spain, which is so desirable in the interests of Spain and of ourselves?

Mr. Bottomley: The usual facilities are being provided.

Oral Answers to Questions — FUEL AND POWER

Gas Consultative Council, S.E. Region

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power which bodies and associations were invited to nominate candidates for appointment to the Gas Consultative Council South Eastern Region; and if he will give the names of the bodies or associations whose candidates have been appointed to the committee.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): As regards the first part of the Question, since the list is a long one I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The South Eastern Gas Consultative Council has not yet been appointed, and the second part of the Question, does not, therefore, arise.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's action in providing that vesting day shall be 1st May, can he give an assurance that this Council will be appointed before vesting day?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. Under the Act a period of six months is allowed after vesting day before the Council has to be appointed.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is satisfied to leave consumers without any protection whatsoever for that period?

Mr. Gaitskell: No, Sir. I expect the Council will be appointed well in advance of the six months' date.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Is not this all part of the Socialist Party's policy for a better deal for the consumer?

Following is the list:

The following bodies have been asked to nominate candidates for appointment to the South Eastern Gas Consultative Council under the Gas Act, 1948:

The Association of Municipal Corporations.
The Urban District Councils' Association.
The Rural District Councils' Association.
The County Councils' Association.
The Joint Standing Committee of Metropolitan Boroughs.
The London County Council.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce.
The Federation of British Industries.
The National Union of Manufacturers.
The Parliamentary Committee of Cooperative Congress.
The Trades Union Congress.
The National Council of Women.
The Standing Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations.
The National Federation of Women's Institutes.
The Women's Gas Council.
The Women's Voluntary Services.

Petrol Imports

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what percentage of our petrol imports during 1948 came from the dollar area; and what was the cost in sterling.

Mr. Gaitskell: In 1948, United Kingdom imports of motor spirit (including aviation spirit) from dollar sources amounted to 43 per cent. by value of the total from all sources. The cost, in terms of sterling, was approximately £16 million f.o.b.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that £18 million was spent on dollars for tobacco, which is a luxury, surely it is most unfair that the motorist in this country, whether he motors for pleasure or for industrial purposes, should be treated so improperly?

Mr. Gaitskell: Broadly speaking, petrol for essential purposes is provided.

Staff

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many additional staff his Department has taken on since 1st March, 1949.

Mr. Gaitskell: No additional staff have been recruited since 1st March, 1949. There was a small net decrease between 1st March and 9th April.

Mr. York: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power how many persons are required to take over the checking of stocks of petrol and coupons at garages, which task was previously performed by the petrol supply companies.

Mr. Gaitskell: The number of persons required to take over the checking of petrol coupons returned from garages, etc., cannot be precisely determined until some experience of the work involved has been gained, but it is estimated that only 11 additional staff will be required.

Mr. York: Will these additional staff come from the existing staff in the Ministry and, if so, from what jobs?

Mr. Gaitskell: I could not say without notice. There will not be 11 people exclusively engaged on this work, which will be combined with other work.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPORTED PERIODICALS

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Commissioner of Police, in watching for sadistic literature, directed to the young and imported from the United States of America and Canada, has requested the Director of Public Prosecutions to forward him copies of the publications referred to in his speech on 28th January at Portsmouth.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I am informed that the Director in his speech of 28th January was speaking in general terms and was not referring to any publications in his hands at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — JURY CASES (NEWSPAPER REPORTS)

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to prevent

the publication of newspaper reports of cases committed for trial by jury until after the jury's verdict has been given.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I have no reason to think that in cases in which a fair trial seems likely to be prejudiced by newspaper reports the powers of the courts to punish for contempt are insufficient.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British juries always desire to be impartial, but that their impartiality can be greatly strained by having read the committal proceedings, which generally contain only the prosecution case and often contain evidence which is inadmissible at the trial? In those circumstances, will he remember, bearing in mind the small area from which juries often have to be chosen, that it is a matter which sometimes causes injustice by imposing such a strain on the jury?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. I should have thought that the directions of the judge and the proceedings of the trial would bring home to the jury their responsibility for judging on the evidence. I do not like the idea of introducing at any stage unnecessary secrecy into criminal procedure.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public can eventually get the whole of the evidence, but that they must wait for it until after the conviction or acquittal, if this suggestion is accepted?

Mr. Ede: I am quite certain that if a case was not committed for trial as a result of proceedings which took place in secret, there might be insinuations which would be very harmful to the tradition of British justice.

Mr. Renton: I am not suggesting any secrecy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BETTING (ROYAL COMMISSION)

Mr. Gunter: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the members of the Royal Commission on Lotteries. Betting and Gaming.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. As I informed the House on Thursday, 10th February, 1949, the Chairman


of this Royal Commission will be Mr. H. U. Willink, K.C. The King has now been pleased to approve the appointment of the following members of the Commission:

Mr. James Campbell.
Sir Gerald Bain Canny, K.C.B., K.B.E.
Sir Eric Gore-Brown, D.S.O., O.B.E., T.D.
Professor Herbert Arthur Hodges, M.A., D.Phil.
Colonel Evan Austen Hunter, C.B.E.
Professor John Jewkes, C.B.E.
Mr. Ivor Jones.
Miss Margaret Kidd, K.C.
Sir Eric Charles Miéville, G.C.I.E., K.C.V.O., C.S.I., C.M.G.
Mrs. Elsie Parker.
Mr. Herbert Sutcliffe.
Mr. Frank Wolstencroft, C.B.E.

Mr. H. Hynd: In view of the fact that the Chancellor has postponed the question of taxing betting and that in the meantime the incidence of taxation as between, for example, horseracing and greyhound racing is most unfair, will the Prime Minister do what he can to expedite the work of this Commission?

The Prime Minister: We cannot expedite the work of the Commission. The Commission must take the proper time and that is not my responsibility.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: How many of the members of the Commission know anything about betting conditions in Scotland?

The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will look at the answer.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Mr. Sutcliffe who is mentioned an hon. Member of this House?

The Prime Minister: No, he is an honourable member of the Yorkshire cricket team.

Dr. Segal: Will my right hon. Friend circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of the past official connections of the members of the Commission?

The Prime Minister: I will look into that.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a special commission, similar to the Hoover Com-

mission in the United States of America, to inquire into extravagance and overlapping in the Armed Forces.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Commission in America has already performed useful service in drawing attention to waste in the Armed Services, and does he know that there is considerable disquiet in this country about our £760 million expenditure? Does he think that a commission would serve a useful purpose here?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not think this device would be particularly appropriate here. We have looked at the matter to see if there were any valuable lessons to be learned from it, but here we have a different administration, having set up a Ministry of Defence, and already we have anticipated many of the proposals contained in the Hoover Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS

Sir John Mellor: asked the Minister of Labour to what extent he has exercised, or proposes to exercise, his statutory powers with a view to terminating the recent strike at the London docks, or in connection therewith.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): The question of legal proceedings is under consideration.

Sir J. Mellor: As the law has been challenged and defied by officials of a powerful union, will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that those officials will be brought to justice forthwith?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Nonsense.

Mr. Isaacs: I will not add to, or take away anything from, the answer I have given.

Sir J. Mellor: Is it not the duty of the Minister to enforce the law or relinquish power?

Mr. Isaacs: It is also the responsibility of the Minister to see that he says nothing to disturb the course of events as they are proceeding. The hon. Member has a right to ask the question and I have a right to decide on the terms of my answer.

Mr. McCorquodale: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information whether the position is any easier? I also understand that the lightermen, to their credit, refused the advice of their executive to join in the strike. Is it not a fact, therefore, that the advice of the executive was a direct incitement to their members to break the law?

Mr. Isaacs: I think the right hon. Gentleman might have given me a little notice about that latter point. It is very difficult to answer "off the bat." I do not know whether the circumstances are as stated or not and it is impossible to answer. As to the position at the moment, the situation this morning is somewhat confused. Some docks are working normally, while at others men are presenting themselves for work, but on changed conditions, not acceptable to employers. The meeting of stevedores, which started at 10.30 this morning, is still in progress and, in the circumstances, I am afraid I am not able to give any more accurate assessment of the position.

Mr. McCorquodale: In view of the fact that the Easter Recess is coming on, and that we cannot question the Minister again until the House reassembles, can we have a further assurance that the food supplies of the country will in no way be held up during the Recess?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only confirm the assurance I gave the other day that it is the intention of the Government that food supplies and other necessary goods will be kept moving.

Mr. McCorquodale: May I also say that the broadcast of the right hon. Gentleman last night was very acceptable?

Mr. Platts-Mills: As every single strike since the war, except the one at the Savoy, has been illegal and there have been only three prosecutions out of the thousands of disturbances of this kind, will the right hon. Gentleman see that no action likely to discriminate against these dockers is taken while we are in Recess, or at all, and will he consider discouraging the attempts coming from the other side of the House to abuse and threaten the dockers?

Mr. Isaacs: I can only answer that I will read the hon. Member's Question

carefully when I see it in the OFFICIAL REPORT and, in making up my mind, will bear in mind the bias of the hon. Gentleman who asked it.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order, is it in Order for an hon. Member, or a Minister of the House, to refer to another hon. Member's remark as biased?—[Interruption]—behave yourselves.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: A Minister of the Crown.

Mr. Piratin: A Minister of the Crown—you behave yourself. Is it in Order for a Minister of the Crown particularly to refer to the remark of another hon. Gentleman as being biased and to say that when taking the question into consideration he will also remember his bias?

Mr. Speaker: I should have thought there was nothing in the point of Order. From a party point of view, I suppose we are all slightly biased.

Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of that Ruling, may I be allowed to claim great credit for the bias I hold in favour of the dockers of Great Britain?

Mr. Hollis: Is it in Order, Sir, for the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) to tell you to behave yourself?

Mr. Piratin: I take it that the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis) may have noticed that while my expression included the pronoun "you," my eyes were directed to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter).

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask whether the Minister is aware that the policy pursued by him in similar cases has led to this country having a better record in respect of strikes than any country in the world?

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is he also aware that the policy the Minister pursued in respect of the last dock strike is one of the instances which led the Prime Minister to move his next constituency a little further inland?

Later—

Mr. Isaacs: May I ask for the indulgence of the House in order to make a statement?
I have just been informed that, at a meeting now in progress, the General Secretary of the Stevedores' Union has explained the illegality of the strike and has instructed the members to return to work to enable the Executive to give the 21 days' notice of a dispute, as required by the National Arbitration Board.

Mr. McCorquodale: I am sure the whole House will be glad to hear that the Executive of the Stevedores' Union do now realise the illegality of their action and are taking steps to see that the law regarding industrial disputes, which has been of such great value to all parties, is upheld and obeyed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Austrian Conversion Loan (Italy)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a formal request to the Italian Government to end their default on the drawn bonds of the Austrian Conversion Loan, in view of the fact that they have sufficient sterling credit for the purpose and that the Governments of France, Belgium, Sweden, Holland and Denmark have fulfilled their obligations on such bonds.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): We have already pressed the Italian Government to meet this obligation, and we shall continue to do so.

Mr. Keeling: Would the Economic Secretary say whether the Italian Government have been informed how much their credit would improve if they joined the company of States which have honoured their obligations on these bonds instead of remaining bracketed with the only other defaulter, Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Jay: I am sure that the Italian Government will take note of what the hon. Member has said.

Estate Duty

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what allowance he proposes to make in cases where payment has been accepted in commutation of legacy or succession duties, in view of the increased charge of Estate Duty in substitution for these duties.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): I must ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the forthcoming Finance Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman at least give an assurance that the Chancellor, having eaten his cake, does not propose also to have it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know what the hon. Member means by that supplementary question. Of course, this point will have to be dealt with when we reach the Finance Bill.

Sir J. Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully study that question in HANSARD?

E.R.P. Commodities

Mr. Piratin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will detail the goods and their value which we received under the European Recovery Programme during 1948–49.

Mr. Jay: During the period 4th April to 31st December, 1948, the total value (f.o.b.) of arrivals of E.R.P. commodities for which procurement authorisations had been granted or were expected at the end of the period was approximately 845,750,000 dollars. For details of the goods involved, I would refer the hon. Member to Table B appended to the Second Report on Operations under the Economic Co-operation Agreement published as Cmd. 7654. Reports on the operations in subsequent quarters will be published in due course.

Bathroom Cabinets (Taxation)

Sir P. Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why permission was given to Modern Industries, Limited, of Kingston-on-Thames, to dispose of recess bathroom cabinets, without the addition of tax, up to 31st March, 1949, when at that time such goods were generally held liable to tax; and what steps have been taken to ensure that similar privileges are not granted to other individual suppliers to the detriment of their competitors.

Mr. Jay: This situation arose from a misunderstanding. The circumstances are not likely to recur.

Sir P. Hannon: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that no discrimination of any kind took place in the exercise of the authority of the Treasury?

Mr. Jay: Yes, certainly. I think there was a genuine misunderstanding. We are taking steps to see that it does not occur again.

Oral Answers to Questions — FINANCIAL YEAR (BUDGET DATE)

Mr. Hollis: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will in future alter the financial year so as to make it coincide with the calendar year and introduce the Budget as soon as possible after the beginning of the year.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir.

Mr. Hollis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the accident of an April Budget is due solely to the fact that the Chancellor in 1832 had influenza in February, and that there is no sound reason for this inconvenient division of the year from a business and financial point of view? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman faced the future?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (REPORT)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will now make a further statement as to whether, and by what means, he intends to give effect to the majority recommendation of the Kitchen Committee that the entire cost of the staff and equipment in the Refreshment Department throughout the year should be defrayed by the Treasury.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave on 7th April to the Question put by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe).

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the ambiguity of that reply, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that no action will be taken on these lines unless and until the consent of this House has been obtained?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Obviously the consent of the House will have to be obtained for any expenditure of money.

The report has not yet been adopted, and it is not for me to say whether it should be, or, if it is agreed, when it should be.

Mr. Keeling: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to correct two statements which he made last Thursday both of which were inaccurate? The first was that I had supported this recommendation of the Kitchen Committee. The second was that if it were put into effect, no Supplementary Estimate would be required this year.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I still stand by what I said. I said that there is an Estimate for this year of I think £14,500, and it is not proposed to exceed that amount.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Estimate, which relates solely to the anticipated deficit under the present system, has nothing whatever to do with the expenditure which would be involved if this special report were accepted? Will he make it clear whether his answer of 7th April referred to the ordinary deficit or to this extraordinary expenditure?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I dealt with the situation which had arisen. We are now referring to a report made by the Kitchen Committee. On the occasion to which I refer, if my recollection serves me aright, certain Members referred to the report but the report as such was not before the Committee on that occasion.

Mr. Keeling: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if effect were given to this special report of the Kitchen Committee it would require a Supplementary Estimate of at least £35,000, and that the sum in the present Estimate only allows for the staff to be paid during the Recess whereas the special report wishes to put the cost of their pay and of the equipment on the taxpayer for the entire year?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: I hope that nothing I have said would lead the House to believe the contrary.

Mr. McCorquodale: Would the right hon. Gentleman correct his statement about my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling)?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: All that I said, in reply to a supplementary question, was that I assumed that the hon. Gentleman


had been a party to the decision. I take it that in a democratic community, when a matter goes to a Division and it is decided by an overwhelming majority that representations should be made to the Treasury, as was the case on that occasion, the hon. Gentleman shares with his colleagues the responsibility of that representation.

Mr. Keeling: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that whenever one's name appears in the Division List among the "Noes" one must be assumed to have been a party to the decision if the "Ayes" have it?

Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir. But there is such a thing as being loyal to one's colleagues if one serves with them on a committee, or of resigning from that committee.

Captain Crookshank: Would it not be graceful for the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw what was obviously a mistake on his part? My hon. Friend voted against this proposal. He cannot possibly be held to agree with it.

Mr. Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman trying to establish as a principle for the conduct of Members in this House that loyalty should be a stronger motive than either conscience or reason.

Oral Answers to Questions — ISRAEL (COMMERCIAL REPRESENTATIVE)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet appointed a commercial representative to the State of Israel.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): Yes, Sir. A First Secretary (Commercial) has been appointed to the staff of the United Kingdom Representative in Israel, and it is planned that he shall proceed to Tel Aviv with the other members of Mr. Helm's staff as soon as possible.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us the name of this representative.

Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Stoodley.

Sir P. Hannon: What are the qualifications of this gentleman who has been appointed? Does he know conditions in Israel?

Mr. Mayhew: So far as I am aware, the person concerned has a record of long and reliable service in the Foreign Service.

Dr. Segal: Would my hon. Friend also consider the sending out of a commercial delegation to extend friendly relations with the State of Israel in order that this country may not be pushed to the bottom of the queue in this part of Palestine?

Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Will my hon. Friend give the House an assurance that there has been no phonetic error in the name which he has transmitted to the House this morning?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Has this gentleman sufficient contact men at his disposal?

Oral Answers to Questions — LONDON PHONOGRAM SERVICE

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Postmaster-General how many positions were staffed on the London Phonogram Service; what was the average delay before subscribers were answered last month and 12 months ago, respectively; and what steps are being taken to improve the service.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Hobson): Last month there were 114 telegraphists in London dealing with phonograms during the day busy hour and 26 during the evening. The average time before subscribers were answered was 28 seconds during the day and 32 seconds in the evening, the figures being about the same as a year ago. Every effort is being made to improve the service in spite of the rapid turn-over of staff and consequent shortage of experienced operators.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since very little apparatus is required for the phonogram service at the receiving end—only a telephone and a girl—and since the other three—letter codes on the London telephone system are very properly occupied by "Trunks," "Toll," "Engineers," etc., will the hon. Gentleman do his best to improve the system, which is now very bad?

Mr. Hobson: It is purely a question of shortage of staff. As soon as we can get the staff the time will be reduced.

Mr. Tolley: Will not the noble Lord agree that little girls are very scarce at the present time?

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURAL LAND, CARDIFF

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PETER THORNEYCROFT:

54. To ask the Minister of Town and Country Planning to what extent he has consulted the Minister of Agriculture over the proposal of the Cardiff City Council to acquire, by compulsory purchase, valuable agricultural land lying to the eastward of that city.

Mr. Thorneycroft: May I raise a point of Order on this Question? It refers, Mr. Speaker, as you will see, to the attempted compulsory purchase by Cardiff Corporation of valuable agricultural land in Monmouthshire. I originally put the Question down to the Minister of Agriculture. I received a message from the Minister of Agriculture that it would not be convenient for him to be here on Thursday. I said it was inconvenient for me too, but would he or his Parliamentary Secretary attempt to answer the Question. Then and then only was it transferred to the Minister of Town and Country Planning. I would ask you, Sir, in what way I can raise this very important matter of agricultural interest with the Ministry concerned?

Wing-Commander Millington: Are you aware, Sir, that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture is sitting in this House?

Mr. Speaker: I have no control; I cannot say what Minister shall answer what Question. It has nothing to do with me. I have no power in the matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. King): There has been full consultation between my Department and the Ministry of Agriculture, and due weight will be given to the agricultural value of the land.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Can I be satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture will do his best to safeguard the future of this

agricultural land, which is of great value in view of the present food shortage in this country, and see that it is not swallowed up by any urban development?

Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will obviously carry out his duties as he ought to do. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Town and Country Planning to arbitrate between Departments over land use. He is in constant consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. Thorneycroft: What representations has the Minister of Agriculture made about this? Is he asking the Minister of Town and Country Planning to keep away from this land or not?

Mr. King: The Government speak on this question as one Government. It is not practical to distinguish between one Minister and another.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARGENTINE STAMPS (VALIDITY)

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of Argentine pretensions to sovereignty in the Falkland Islands, documents and postage stamps expressing, such pretensions will be treated as invalid by the authorities in the islands.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): As regards the validity of Argentine postage stamps I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on Wednesday, 6th April, by my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General. It is not clear to what documents the hon. Member is referring and if he will specify the types of documents which he has in mind I will make further inquiries.

Sir J. Mellor: So far as postage stamps are concerned, is it not intolerable that British sovereignty should thus be challenged on British soil, and if the International Convention is the difficulty surely the Government should ask for the Convention to be amended.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I understand that my right hon. Friend has protested to the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union, but if the policy suggested by the hon. Member was pursued it would mean that recipients of letters in the Falkland Islands would be penalised.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

BRITISH FILM INSTITUTE BILL

"to provide for the payment to the British Film Institute of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament," presented by Mr. Glenvil Hall; supported by Mr. Herbert Morrison, Mr. Younger and Mr. John Edwards; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 116.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Whiteley.]

HORTICULTURAL INDUSTRY

11.55 a.m.

Mr. Baker White: In the time which has been allotted to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) we have an opportunity of discussing the condition of British horticulture. I think it would be a good thing at the outset to consider the character and structure of this industry. It is an industry within the agricultural industry, and consequently it is ultimately the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. There are more than 60,000 growers in British horticulture. Some of them are big men—some very big—but the majority are small men, and their businesses are family affairs employing no outside labour. Most of the post-1945 entries are ex-Service men and women who have sunk all their capital in their holdings. The industry gives permanent employment to some 150,000 persons and seasonal work and wages to many others.
British horticulture produces £120 million worth of food a year for the people and that in itself is a very remarkable achievement. It has attained by intensive cultivation and the application of scientific methods, a very high output of food per acre. I shall give only two examples. There are 4,142 acres of commercial glasshouses. All those have been developed during the past 70 years. There are 1,000 acres of cloches in use by over 5,000 commercial growers. If the number of growers using cloches, Dutch lights and frames, which all represents a great investment of money, are

calculated together there must be at least 10,000. One virtue of the cloche growers is that they produce four crops in a year. Last year they produced 4,000 tons of lettuce, 8,200 tons of tomatoes and 4,500 tons of cucumbers. It should also be remembered, although it is very often forgotten, that in a kind season Britain grows the best fruit and vegetables in the world.
That, very broadly, is the picture of the industry which, in my opinion, has been placed in grave jeopardy by the policy of the Minister of Food. I do not exaggerate when I say that he has created alarm and anger throughout the industry. I do not doubt the good will of the Minister of Agriculture who has ultimate responsibility for the welfare of this industry, but we need something much more than good will at the present time. The attitude of the Minister of Food is very different. It is quite evident from his replies to questions and in his statements, that the Minister of Food does not regard British horticulture as a band of hardworking men and women doing a fine job of food production. He seems to regard them as a band of hard-faced people who are trying to hold the nation to ransom.
I think his attitude to the industry was well illustrated by two replies which he gave in this House on 21st March. In reply to a Question from myself asking if he had consulted the home growers before signing the Netherlands Agreement he said:
If we always took in full all the advice given by the British horticultural industry, I am afraid that the price of vegetables would be very high indeed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 20.]
No one has ever asked him to take the advice in full, or to take it always. The complaint of the industry is that he never takes that advice. There was no proper consultation at all before the Netherlands Agreement was signed. He assumed, without taking the trouble to find out, that the advice of the industry would be a demand either for no imports or for higher prices. Actually the advice which the industry had to give contained neither of those demands.
The second reply of the Minister was to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) who asked about the adverse


effect of broccoli imports on the Cornish crop. The Minister replied that he intended to use the price weapon to give cheap broccoli to the British housewife. Again there is the implication that the growers wish to hold the consumers to ransom. If the Minister will study the story of British horticulture during the war years, when his predecessors were very grateful for the great contribution it made to the national food supply—often at considerable financial sacrifice to itself—he will realise how mistaken he is in that view.
The Minister of Food, presumably with the agreement of the Minister of Agriculture, has adopted a horticultural imports policy which, in my view, will lead in the end not to cheaper and better supplies to the consumer, but to an evil succession of gluts and shortages. In the few minutes at my disposal I can give only two examples. Last year his import policy and failure to take heed of cropping and market intelligence resulted in an unsaleable glut of homegrown onions. That was the British growers' reward for obeying the call of the Minister of Agriculture to grow more onions. The home consumption of onions is estimated at something under 250,000 tons a year. Under the agreements with the Netherlands, Poland and other countries, imports of 296,000 tons are to be allowed this year. Therefore, we shall have 296,000 tons of onions, without any of the home crop at all, to meet the demand of something less than 250,000 tons.
It is true that under the Netherlands Agreement the Minister can fix the date for Dutch imports at any time before 15th September, having regard to the size of the home crop. But, as was found out last year, that regulation can be evaded comparatively easily. It is far from being an adequate safeguard. Highly experienced growers believe that the Minister's onion policy will result in another glut in 1949, more losses for British growers, and then a shortage in 1950.
The other example I take is that of tomatoes. The Minister has agreed to allow the importation in 1949 of 23,000 tons of Dutch tomatoes, compared with 12,000 tons in 1948. Of the 23,000 tons approximately 8,250 tons may be imported during July and August. That

means, following the Dutch cropping practice, that 14,750 tons are left to be imported before 30th June. The proposed total imports are 1,259 tons more than the total average Dutch production, 20 per cent. of which is available in June. The only inference is that if the Dutch are to meet their contract they will buy tomatoes from over the border in Belgium and re-export them to this country. It means also that the major part of the imports will come in at exactly the same time as the crop from Guernsey and our own hot-house crop. It is ironical to see if one looks at Europe today that the Minister of Food's tomato import policy is encouraging tomato production in Morocco, the Canary Islands and Holland and discouraging it in England. Scotland and the Channel Islands.
What is the solution? How can British horticulture be safeguarded and given stability while ensuring that the consumer gets adequate supplies at a reasonable price. There are five steps which can be taken. The first involves a more skilful routing of foreign imports to ensure that they do not, as so often happens now, come to the South of England markets which are already adequately supplied with home-grown products. That applies particularly to broccoli, lettuce, radishes, strawberries, cherries, plums and tomatoes. The refrigerated trains from Dover should be routed not to London but to the North. Similarly, shipping carrying imports from Holland should be routed to Hull, Immingham and Newcastle instead of London and Harwich. The northern markets which do not see any of these products in quantity now would then get their fair share.
The second step is that more materials should be made available to enable British growers to use a limited quantity of non-returnable containers, and more packing materials generally. That would secure a better over-all distribution. There is nothing the railway companies hate more than having to bring back from the North of England empty containers. If this step were taken it would enable the British grower to compete more or less on fair terms with the foreigner who gets all the containers and packing materials he wants.
The third point concerns better grading and packing of home produce by the growers and the ruthless elimination by


them of sub-standard produce. That can result from more growers' co-operatives for marketing produce of small growers, more packing materials, and above all from stability. One cannot get high overall quality without stability. Better marketing, distribution and grading all depend upon a sound and stable policy.
The fourth step is a quantitative regulation of imports taking into consideration the quantity of home supplies available; a long-term policy which gives the industry a chance to plan ahead. The Government's lack of policy was completely betrayed by the Prime Minister on 28th March when answering a series of questions on vegetable imports. He said:
… in order to get necessary things, we have to import certain other things which we do not want."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th March, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 835.]
If onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce and other horticultural products are being brought into the country on this bad principle, I say that we shall never get stability in horticulture.
My fifth and last proposal is the readjustment of tariffs on imported produce in order to relate them to pre-war conditions. If the Minister of Food or any hon. Member opposite doubts the wisdom of this policy, I would refer them to page 7 of the pamphlet entitled "Our Land." There it states:
All that has happened since 1932 has strengthened the case so forcibly stated in the Party's Memorandum of that time, for the necessity of the stabilisation of fair prices, and for the adoption of a comprehensive system of imports control.
That pamphlet was published by the Labour Party. At present the Government seem to have no policy for horticulture, although the Minister of Agriculture said on 12th March at Lincoln:
The horticultural industry has an important contribution to make to our programme.
The Government ask for large acreages of individual crops, and then they destroy the market for them by large imports of the same crops.
I wonder whether the Ministers of Food and Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture visited the Government's "On Our Way" Exhibition. In it were included two display panels. One bore

the photograph of a land girl, leaning on a fork, and a young man driving a tractor. The caption on the panel was:
More production from the land—to save imports of food and raw materials.
Immediately opposite that panel was another, made up of six pictures of horticultural produce. Prominent in it were the British onions now rotting on the waste heaps of Lincolnshire: the leeks now being ploughed into the fields of Kent; and the Cornish broccoli unable to find a market. A little penance in front of these panels might be good for these Ministers. I quote the words of a leading figure in industry speaking on the attitude of the Government. He says:
It is a travesty to call it a policy because there is no semblance of any clear plan for the horticultural industry having emerged from the Government so far. The industry is drifting aimlessly, buffeted about from time to time, and the dangers must be apparent to all. Imports are, in theory, regulated, but in practice completely unregulated. Foreign produce is being brought in while home-grown is being ploughed in.
I will quote also one of the greatest horticultural experts in this country, Mr. F. A. Secrett, who was adviser to the Minister of Agriculture from 1942 to 1948. In February he wrote:
I have been in business producing horticultural crops for the last 41 years. During the last few months I have destroyed more vegetable crops than were destroyed on my farms during the last two decades.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the advice tendered by Mr. Secrett was followed from 1942 to 1948 and was responsible for the destruction of more lettuce in 1946 than occurred in any season before?

Mr. Baker White: I understand that when Mr. Secrett was adviser to the Minister of Agriculture, there was certainly not such a destruction of crops as is the case now. That is the view of the 60,000 growers of the industry who produced over three-quarters of our total consumption of vegetable crops They do not ask for closed markets, or a shutdown on imports; only a sensible regulation and intelligent distribution to the markets that need them most. They do not ask for guaranteed prices, but they do ask for some semblance of continuity in Government policy, an end to the contradiction under which the Minister of Agriculture says to them, "Maintain your acreage, grow more, carry increased


labour and material costs without guaranteed prices," while the Minister of Food says, "I will force down prices by any means in my power." The horticultural industry asks for stability. The alternative will be ruin for a very large number of small men and a serious decline in home production.
In the Debate on groundnuts, the Minister of Food gave the House a Latin quotation. In my bad Latin, I will give him another: Labore agricolae fioreat civitas—"By the toil of the husbandman may the nation flourish." That is golden truth. Our forefathers have left us a priceless legacy—the land of Britain. It is both valuable and beautiful, and we can make it more valuable and more beautiful, for the greater comfort and security of everyone.
I shall conclude on a personal note. I believe that the Minister of Food lives in Essex. I ask him next week-end to go up to the edge of Hainault Forest and look out across the Essex fields towards the Thames and the Kent hills beyond. It is a broad and beautiful vista, within which he will see not only many horticultural holdings, but many of the houses of the people of East London, whom they feed. To "stand and stare" will be for him time well spent, because if he can see the mistake he made over meat, the miscalculation which he made over groundnuts and the blunder he is making over horticulture, he may also see—
in vision the worm in the wheat,
And in the shops nothing for people to eat,
Nothing for sale in Stupidity Street.

12.13 p.m.

Mr. Collins: If I may resume the Debate on horticulture, I would like, first of all, to congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on raising the Question of horticulture, which in relation to its importance is discussed all too infrequently in this House. The hon. Gentleman made several valuable suggestions for the consideration of the Minister which I hope will be given careful attention. With at least one of his strictures on the Government I am in agreement, namely, that a sound horticultural policy should have been produced and implemented long since. In regard to most of his other remarks, I thought they were largely a travesty of or a complete failure to appreciate the whole of the

facts. Some of his remarks were directed against my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, who was accused of regarding horticulturists as a band of hard-faced men trying to hold the nation to ransom. It was also said that the horticultural industry had been placed in jeopardy by his acts of omission or commission.
The Minister of Food, of course, has some responsibility in this matter, but his chief responsibility, and in fact the prime responsibility of the Government with regard to horticulture, is to assist the industry to fulfil its prime and most important function, which is to ensure to the housewife a sufficient supply, both in quantity and variety, of fruit and vegetables at reasonable prices. That must be and must remain the prime function of any Minister concerned with horticulture, and it was significant that the hon. Member in his speech scarcely mentioned the public at all. It is for that reason that I criticise what he said and the general attitude of the party opposite in that they, apparently, see only one section of an industry which has three parts which are indivisible—the growing of horticultural produce, its wholesale distribution and its retail distribution. It is quite impossible to consider one section alone; they must be regarded as a whole, and we must always keep before us the objective of what the housewife is going to pay for the produce.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned onions, and said that under the present arrangements the home crop, plus imports provisionally arranged for, will total 296,000 tons, against an estimated consumption of 240,000 tons. Before the war, the average importation of onions was always about 250,000 tons, though sometimes it was above and sometimes below that figure. We also had a small home production. The home demand for all these fruits and vegetables today, under full employment and increased purchasing power, is far higher. In tomatoes, it is more than double what it was before the war. There must be something wrong with the hon. Gentleman's figures there.

Mr. Gerald Williams: Does the hon. Gentleman know what was the consumption of onions in this country last year?

Mr. Collins: I should imagine it was in excess of 240,000 tons.

Mr. Williams: It was 153,000 tons.

Mr. Collins: The hon. Gentleman mentioned consumption, which was, in fact, far higher than that. The hon. Member for Canterbury said that onions are now rotting in the fields of Lincolnshire, and I say that that is a slander on the farmers of Lincolnshire, because English onions rarely keep beyond December, and if they have not disposed of them and used the land for some other purpose, it is just bad husbandry. Last year, we had an exceptional onion harvest and we produced many times what we produced in pre-war years. I subscribe entirely to the view that there must be a sensible relationship between imports and home production, and it is utterly wrong for home producers to produce a certain acreage of foodstuffs and then not to be assured, as reasonably as we can assure them, of a proper market.
No good is done to the horticultural industry however by painting this exaggerated picture or by using the very fortunate fact of a plentiful supply as political propaganda. Before the war, it was, in the main, true that the Tory policy was designed to grow richer and richer by producing less and less. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, yes. What about potatoes? What about hops? We are now reversing that policy by planning for greater supplies, but we should see that they reach the housewife without the enormous handicap of increased costs of distribution, which are the main factor in robbing the producer of the rewards of his toil.
There has also been some mention of broccoli. The hon. Member referred to my right hon. Friend's reply to a question put to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) about the effect of broccoli imports on home growers. I made it my business to find out, because the hon. Member also said that Cornish broccoli growers could not sell their crops. That is absolutely untrue. They have had a very good season, certainly far better than last year, which was largely due to the unpublicised efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Food, who encouraged them to engage in co-operative packing and grading. Their efforts this year have been extremely successful, and they are to be congratulated on the great advance they have made in this important matter. But

if we examine the prices, we find that today the Cornish broccoli grower is getting an average wholesale price of 8d. for his broccoli. Up to 31st March, Italian and French broccoli were coming in, and the Cornish grower was getting precisely the same price for well-packed and well-graded stuff as was paid for those imports. Of course, he did not get it for rubbish, and it is only right that he should not do so. But the three products were sold on an equality of price.
What were those prices? The wholesale price was 8d. or 1s., but in the shops the prices were 2s. and 2s. 6d. That is the important thing. Is it suggested that Italian and French broccoli imports should have been excluded? Had they been, what would have been the position of the housewife, and how high would prices have risen? The whole country would have condemned the Government for its policy in denying the housewife proper access to sufficient supplies. The same thing can be said about lettuce. At the present time, thousands of crates of Dutch lettuce are coming in every day: they are being sold at the wholesale price of 6d. a lettuce. English lettuce, smaller but fresher, are also being sold today at a wholesale price of 6d. or 7d. each. That is a very fair price, but unfortunately the housewife is paying 10d. to 1s. 3d., which is not a fair price.
We speak of the limits of home consumption, but we must also bear in mind that what we mean is the limit of consumption at a price. If, in fact, the present system is producing a price of 1s. or 1s. 3d. for a lettuce, then obviously the demand is nothing like what it would be if that produce could be got to the housewife at a lower price, though one sufficient to reward the efficient producer and distributor. No one in this House can deny that at the present moment, and for some time past, the prices obtained for properly produced stuff are very fair to the producer. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), who comes from a big producing area, will know that sprout growers have had a good season and have received good prices; but if the horticulturist then says that the supplies are too large, I say that he is damaging his own cause. He should attack the trouble where it exists—the distributing cost and the wide margin between what he gets and what the consumer pays.
One more point on the price of green-stuffs. The tragedy this year has been the very low prices obtained for cabbages and things of that kind. It is true that farmers have had to plough them in because they could not get a reasonable price; but in that class of produce there are no imports at all, and therefore it cannot be argued that that is what is causing the trouble. I urge, therefore, that we should apply ourselves as quickly as possible to the real cause of the difficulty, which is that, as a result of the war emergency, the tendency has grown up to produce quantity instead of quality and to pay completely insufficient regard to the importance of packing and grading. It is generally acknowledged throughout the trade that, to a very large extent in English horticulture, there is nothing like the attempt at proper packing and grading which there is in other countries.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Surely the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the greatest difficulties from which growers suffer is that the packing material is not available, and that, if a grower has not the special packing, the actual grading is completely wasted. Surely he must be fair and tell the House that.

Mr. Collins: I agree that our people do suffer some disability with regard to packing materials, but, for instance, when crating cauliflowers—and there is no shortage of crates at all—it is just as easy to sort them out as to put in indiscriminately small, medium and large vegetables, as is often done.

Mr. Hurd: Mr. Hurd (Newbury)indicated dissent.

Mr. Collins: It is no use the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) shaking his head. I know this happens because I see it every day.

Mr. Hurd: So do I.

Mr. Collins: I agree that there are many first-class packers, but it is the other people who let them down, and that is why we get these complaints about very bad prices.
I wish to make some suggestions to my hon. Friend who is to reply. It is a fact that whenever we have a Debate on horticulture, if the Minister of Agriculture is replying, most of what is said is addressed to the Minister of Food,

and vice versa. There we have the real crux of the problem, because there is the question of a division of responsibility. Some people say that the thing to do is to amalgamate the two Ministries. I say that is nonsense, that it is using a steam hammer to crack a grape. [An HON. MEMBER: "A grapenut."] What is important, however, is that there should be a transfer of certain functions, and, if necessary, a transfer of certain staffs. One Department should be responsible for acreage targets, for the arrangement of the eventual distribution, and for the correlationship of imports, but it would be folly to suggest that the two Ministries should be combined.
We must remember that growing, wholesaling and retailing are not three industries but one, and only if we realise that fact can this problem be properly tackled. Therefore, I suggest that the three sections of the industry should be given an opportunity to get together and within a time limit produce a comprehensive plan which would ensure, first, efficient production, grading and packing; secondly, the elimination of second, third and fourth hand wholesaling, which we find iniquitous; and thirdly, a reasonable retail price instead of the 100, 150 or 200 per cent. above the grower's price which often operates now.
We should also definitely tell the home growers that we reserve to them whatever proportion of the home market they can supply with efficiently-produced and properly-packed goods, with a costing machinery as a yardstick of efficiency. We should give the industry acreage targets, and, assuming an average crop, arrange the import programme so as to fill any gap between the estimated crop and maximum estimated consumption. Imports could easily be stepped up in the event of a partial crop failure. We should also give the industry whatever facilities are needed to set up packing stations, cold-storage and quick-freezing plants, and the processing of ungradeable produce, and we should also be prepared to assist with Government publicity in periods of glut due to exceptional harvests.
Finally, never let us forget that our function is to supply sufficient food at a reasonable price, to ensure that the system is efficient, and that vast expenses


do not go in a completely inefficient distributing system; that our first duty is to the housewife, and that, until the industry itself can show it is efficient in all the ways I have mentioned, it cannot come along—I do not believe it does—and ask for a wall to be set up behind which it can shelter. When it is efficient it will not need the tariffs and quotas which are now asked for. It will be able to stand on its own feet and supply the main part of our market.

12.30 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: It appeared to me that the beginning and the end parts of the speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) were almost in direct conflict with each other. First, he put a halo round the Government for their actions, and at the end he told them what they perhaps ought to do. There was another point which rather puzzled me. What I have to say is subject to a certain amount of reservation until I have read the hon. Member's speech, but I was rather worried because he seemed to imply that if there came a time of surplus products in agriculture and horticulture, with consequent dumping and so forth, the prime duty of the Minister would be to see to the question of the cheapness of the food; the hon. Gentleman did not appear to attach any importance to the necessity for maintaining the security of these industries at full strength. I have already said that I reserve the right to read what the hon. Member in fact said, but that is the impression he gave me.

Mr. Collins: What I definitely said was that the first duty of the Minister was to ensure a sufficient supply to the housewife at a reasonable price. At a later stage I also said it was the duty of the Minister to reserve for the efficient home producer, the maximum share of the market which he was able to supply.

Mr. Marshall: It is fortunate that the hon. Member for Taunton has now made himself clear, because I was not at all certain on that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White), with whose speech I fully agree, mentioned the importance of this industry, which indeed we all recognise, but I should mention that the hon. Member for Taunton said it was strange that the Minister of Agriculture always seemed to reply to our Debates whereas the

attack from hon. Members on this side was directed at the Ministry of Food.

Mr. Collins: And vice versa.

Mr. Marshall: In that case I agree with the hon. Member, because it is the Ministry of Food which I wish to attack.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): There should not be any suggestion that the wrong Minister is replying to this Debate, because I took steps to find out which of the two Ministers the hon. Gentleman wanted to reply. That is why I am here.

Mr. Marshall: Three points struck me as important in relation to this industry. First of all, we know that horticulturists cannot suddenly be made overnight. It is a skilled industry, and a certain amount of training is required. Also, from a purely security point of view, nothing is more important than that we should have the nutritional benefits of fresh vegetables if we should ever be a beleaguered island. Therefore, security enters into the question of horticulture. My chief quarrel with the Government's behaviour towards horticulture in general is this. Again and again there appears to have been no real co-ordination between the Ministries of Food and Agriculture. Imported surpluses have come on to the market and they have had a definite effect upon our horticultural produce. In addition, there has arisen in the minds of those engaged in horticulture a grave anxiety as to what the Government intend to do, and whether or not the Minister of Food is suddenly going to dump an imported surplus upon this country.
I represent a Cornish division, and the whole question of horticulture affects us greatly. The Tamar Valley, that famous valley which supplies all varieties of horticultural produce including soft fruits and flowers, includes the Calstock parish. In the West of Cornwall broccoli and flowers play their part. Here indeed the pressure of imports has imposed anxiety and loss. Not only has pressure had to be put on the Ministry concerned in order to try to get a different date for delivery of these goods, but there has been the over-riding anxiety whether the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture have consulted together in order to co-ordinate the arrival of that produce. It will have been observed that although a target has been


set for the production of broccoli, further import licences have been granted; likewise there is a fivefold increase in the quota for gooseberries and a 50 per cent. increase in hot-house strawberries. This may well affect the parish of Calstock. In the negotiations between the Ministry of Food and the countries concerned, why should they not arrange first of all, a minimum amount of imported produce to be taken, and then additional amounts introduced on a sliding scale so that they are actually related to the productivity of the crops that we ourselves produce?
There has been some quarrel over what the Prime Minister said the other day. The hon. Member for Taunton appears to differ from the Prime Minister's view because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has said, the Prime Minister stated that there were certain occasions when imports had to be taken although there was no necessity to take them. It appeared to me that the hon. Member for Taunton was arguing that the imports were only taken when it was a consumer necessity to take them. Those two arguments are rather different. I do not agree with the Prime Minister's view; there is no necessity to take those imports which are having a detrimental effect upon us. If we have to take goods why not raise the tourist quota and give a free selection thereby.
The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the difficulties with regard to containers and timber, and he knows that I have taken up the matter with his Ministry and the Board of Trade. Although I would be the first to admit that they are doing all they can in the matter, I sincerely trust that they will try more speedily to find an answer to the problem. I have tried without success to put a Question about rail transport of horticultural produce, but since the nationalisation of the railways it has been ruled that such Questions cannot be tabled. Horticulturists in Cornwall are suffering greatly from the delay at the railway terminals. I do not want to give the impression that the delays of the trains are responsible for the difficulties. It is partly due to the delay at the terminals in getting the produce to the markets. There have been considerable losses, and horticulturists are very anxious, especially the flower growers.

Mr. Collins: Would the hon. Member be a little more specific in saying what the delay is?

Mr. Marshall: When the produce arrives at the terminal stations in London the removal of that produce to the markets is delayed, so that the flowers and so forth are not fresh on their arrival at the markets. I sincerely trust that we shall see fit to promote ventures in canning and freezing plant in order to provide facilities for the surpluses that occur, and that His Majesty's Government will give every help they can in that direction.
I feel that horticulture has suffered or appears to suffer from all the penalties that are imposed upon it and enjoys few of the privileges which all in this House agree agriculturalists should have. Mr. Secrett has already been referred to, and I think that no one in the House would deny the fact that he is a man of great knowledge upon this subject. He was adviser to the Ministry of Agriculture from 1942–48 and the matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Taunton in that connection covers only one point during a considerable period of time. Mr. Secrett, in Lloyd's Bank Review for April, 1949, says:
Is there any wonder that a spirit of frustration exists among them, men to whom pride of production means so much? This state of affairs must not continue. The atmosphere of frustration exists from the youngest member on the farm to the managing director. … The industry faces nothing but chaos and perplexity. Frustration is a bleak and distressing theme.
I say that the Ministry of Food and the Ministry of Agriculture must not only talk about co-ordination; there must be co-ordination between those two Ministries.

12.42 p.m.

Mr. Daises: The subject selected for the Adjournment Debate this morning marks an awakening interest of the Opposition in agriculture, and horticulture in particular.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Nonsense.

Mr. Daines: I am not an expert on nonsense, but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman catches the Speaker's eye he will have an opportunity of demonstrating how much he knows about nonsense. I


began to wonder just what hon. Members opposite had in mind when they sought to raise this subject; whether it was an attempt to atone for their own past—and the miserable failure of Conservative Governments before the war in regard to agriculture—or whether it was some form of competition with the Minister of Agriculture to try to prove that they are greater friends of the industry than is the Minister himself.
I have many grave reservations about the policy of the Minister of Agriculture. I expressed them in this House a few days ago. I should be out of Order if I developed that argument further, but it seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture has proved his friendship for the industry to a greater degree than any previous Minister. But the shovelling out of millions every time he wants to change a policy is not necessarily good for the country. I have very grave doubts as to how far it is wise for that policy to be pursued. I rather wondered, when trying to analyse what was in the minds of the Opposition on this subject, whether the real purpose in this Debate and similar Debates is the old one of isolating the Minister—in this case the Minister of Food—and having a good shot at him. That technique is not unusual; it has been followed by the Communist Party ever since we have had a Communist Party, and it rather seems to me that the Tory Party are now beginning to adopt the same tactics.
What I failed to hear from hon. Gentlemen opposite was any charge that the agricultural industry is not in a prosperous state. I think that if Members would turn to Command Paper 7649 on "Income and Expenditure" they would find under the heading "Composition of Personal Income" that the farmers of this country have done pretty well out of the changes in the last few years. In 1938—and I quote from page 11—the income from farming was £60 million and in 1948 the income was £248 million, so apparently the argument that the industry is having a bad time, in terms of financial reward, can hardly be sustained.
I agree broadly with the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins). What we have not been told this morning is that until the Minister of Food started importing broccoli, it was being sold on a constantly rising market. I shall begin to

have very grave doubts about the policy of His Majesty's Government in regard to the importing of foodstuffs, if we are to lend ourselves to the position that because of pressure by the agricultural industry the consumer is to be denied types of food to which he has a legitimate right. I should like the Minister, in his reply, to deny or substantiate that during last year pressure was put on by the agricultural interests to prevent the importation of new peas because the agricultural industry of this country had a surplus of green cabbages of which they could not dispose. There is great danger if the Ministry, either by marketing boards or by direct contact, are going to limit what is a perfectly legitimate right of the consumers.
Another thing that we have not been told this morning is that in the case of onions, which hon. Members opposite seem to know so much about, the actual amount available was 16 times the normal amount. I am quite prepared to concede that the amount sown, in acreage, was eight times what we had in the previous year. We can blame the Minister of Food for a lot—we may not like his face or a lot of things about him, and we may not like the school he went to—but we certainly cannot blame him when the weather produces such bountiful crops. I should have thought that good weather and bountiful crops meant that the Deity had smiled upon us, but to listen to hon. Members opposite one would have thought that the Minister of Food was himself the devil incarnate.
We have heard this morning about tomatoes but we have not heard about cucumbers. What the opener of the Debate did not tell us in regard to the scheduled imports from Holland is how far they relate not only to production in Holland but to consumption in this country. I tell hon. Members opposite that never in the whole of its history has the glass-house industry of this country made such fantastic profits as they have made during the past few years. If that is an implied criticism of the Minister of Food, I am quite prepared to make it.
Cucumbers have been sold during the last 12 months at five times the pre-war figure and tomatoes at over 2¾ times the pre-war figure. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Co-op.?"] That is a very interesting point. As a matter of deliberate


policy my own society has always sold its tomatoes at 2d. and 3d. per lb. below the prices obtaining in the rest of the country, with the result that retailers in the district have had to bring down their prices to compete. I am not going to argue that the Co-op. in general followed that policy, but in my own society that is the policy we have followed.
The policy of the Minister in regard to importations of tomatoes has had a far-reaching effect upon the consumers. At the present time we have perfectly good imported tomatoes retailed at from 1s. 3d. to 1s. 6d. per lb., and if these imports had not been coming in, I am certain that new English tomatoes would be selling at somewhere about 3s. Underlying this question is the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton, that this country in terms of its glasshouse industry is not equipped to provide the amount and type of food in demand. The same applies also in regard to soft fruits. The working people of this country—and I am not seeking to make any party point but merely stating economic facts—like tomatoes and look upon them today as a normal necessity, whereas in 1935 or 1936 they were looked upon as a form of luxury.
Whatever we do, we must face the position that for many years to come it will be quite impossible for home production to satisfy the demands that come from full employment. That is one of the problems, because with full employment there is bound to be a wider spread of purchasing power. We must not look upon this matter in isolation. Members opposite are continually pressing the Board of Trade, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or other Government Departments to step up our exports. This country, due to its climate and peculiar conditions, must of necessity obtain some types of horticultural produce from Continental countries. It is unsound for Members opposite constantly to press for what is in effect a high protectionist policy, which stops Italy, France or the Netherlands from sending to this country the type of food they can produce cheaply and efficiently, thereby preventing a balance of exchange as between imports and exports. Whatever happens and however much we intensify our agricultural and horticultural efforts, we are still

faced with the simple fact that over 50 per cent. of our food must be imported if our people are to live. We cannot escape economic facts in our approach to this subject. So often in these Debates we have an isolated and specialised approach which ignores the broad economic facts.
I should have preferred the Debate to concentrate more on the disposal of the products after they leave the farmers. It seems that the policy of my right hon. Friend in giving freedom to the retailers in the greengrocery trade has not produced the results he expected. The argument was that the free wind of competition would bring down prices and consumers would get the commodities they wanted, but that has not happened, for the simple reason that so many of the retailers have got used to high profits out of marketing shortages that they prefer to continue a market shortage rather than provide goods in greater amount at lower prices.
I do not say that I am not indebted to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) for raising this subject, and whatever I may have said about the motives of hon. Members opposite I still think that this is a useful subject to debate. I sincerely hope that next time we have a Debate on this subject we shall spend more time in dealing with the receiving end and the high profits that are being made, which are so often preventing the consumers from obtaining the advantage of the agricultural policy of the Government.

12.57 p.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I hope that the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines), will forgive me if I do not follow in detail what he has said, except to contest his statement that we must always expect to import at least 50 per cent., if not more, of the food we require. I do not believe that is true. We have to make certain that our production is stepped up and that the figure of 50 per cent. is not laid down as an amount beyond which we must not go. I think that his argument is very unsound. I do not wish to attack the Minister of Food or the Minister of Agriculture, but I want to get at the Secretary of State for Scotland who is not here. His link between the Minister of Food and the Minister


of Agriculture is that he is the Minister of Agriculture for Scotland, but it must be a very tenuous link if we are to judge by results.
We in Scotland are faced with a very severe problem in the matter of horticulture. We have a double difficulty. We not only have competition from Continental countries, but we have an enormous amount of competition from South of the Border. I say that in no unfriendly spirit; but the fact remains that the importations from England of horticultural products are on a very large scale. I want to know what the Secretary of State for Scotland has been doing to safeguard the producers in Scotland. I am bound to say I regret, in, view of the fact that long notice has been given of the subject of this Debate, that at least one of the three Ministers for Scotland has not been able to be present.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown): Perhaps we ought to have all the Members of the Government Front Bench present to ensure that we have the right man.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: No. The Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister of Agriculture in Scotland. I am not expecting the hon. Gentleman to answer my questions, because he cannot answer them—at least he can get away with it on those grounds. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to go into the question of transit charges in respect of the more distant parts of Scotland, to see if it is not possible for the more outlying places to have the benefit of fresh fruit and vegetables which they are not able to grow for themselves. May we also know whether there is to be any limit as to what is to be produced in Scotland and what is to be imported? If, as we hope, there is to be a plan for what is to be imported and what the home farmer has to grow for Great Britain as a whole, we want to know in particular as regards Scotland.
I do not think it right to say, as the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) said, that in the production of fruit and vegetables the first consideration must always be the consumer and the housewife. The first consideration must be a healthy countryside, for without that, the housewife suffers anyway. Let us have first of all, certainty that the agricultural

and horticultural community, from whom I agree high standards must be expected shall be given every chance to maintain a healthy countryside. Without that no country can be said to be either safe or healthy.

1.1 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I am myself a farmer, I have attended agricultural Debates with a good deal of regularity during these last years, and I may say, quite frankly, that I have attended them with a steadily mounting nausea. Hon. Members opposite who represent rural constituencies seem to have completely forgotten that they are Members of Parliament responsible to the whole community, and have constituted themselves into a farm lobby on the American basis. They are encouraging the farming community to adopt the attitude of a pampered keep of the rest of the community. That is an attitude of mind which is neither healthy for the farmers nor likely to contribute to their good. It is time they learned that this people do not eat exclusively for the convenience of the farmer. Under this Government the farming community has undoubtedly been the most favoured section of this nation. It has had a prosperity which it has never experienced before in peacetime; it has been given a secure future such as it never knew before; and yet when any trifling matter goes wrong, perhaps because of an excessive crop, a shriek is raised about it in this House.
Do let us realise some things about market gardeners if we are to debate this subject. Any market gardener reckons in his plan to plough back at least 20 per cent. of his crops. A market gardener plants supplies for a market, and he wants reserves in order to be able to supply that market. His most expensive cost item is not planting the crop but gathering and packing it, conveying it to market, and selling it. That is far and away the most expensive costing item in his production. In order, therefore, to be able to present crops to market, an excess of requirements is always planted. The market gardener cannot anticipate just how the crops will come, but it is generally reckoned that 20 per cent. of the crop will always, as a matter of business, have to be ploughed back. But when that ordinary incident of business occurs nowadays and some of these crops


are ploughed back, we have a high-pitched feminine shriek that adequate protection has not been provided. The rest of the community are getting sick of it, and it is time somebody said so.

1.5 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Williams: The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), like so many of his hon. Friends, keeps charging the "wicked Tories" with wanting to look after only one section of the community. Surely he realises that it is in the consumers' interest to have a healthy agricultural and horticultural industry in this country, and that we can grow fresher produce of at least equal quality and value compared with any other country. If he kills that home-produced article, he will indeed harm the interests of the consumers themselves.
What we complain about is that the Minister keeps urging the producers of this country to produce more and just as they do it, he then swamps the market with imports. Every hon. Member knows that in this little island of ours there is room to grow horticultural produce, but there is not room to grow vast areas of wheat. Horticulture is something we can do, and do well; we have the ability to do it, and it is an industry we must have in the event of war. All hon. Members also know that one acre in horticultural hands produces a value equivalent to ten times as much as an acre in agricultural hands. During the war the Government helped and encouraged; they now seem to be throwing the producer to the winds.
I want to make quite clear, in view of what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said, the promises of help and the encouragement to grow more the Minister has given. I have a few quotations, if the House will bear with me. In 1947 the Minister said:
the Government fully recognise that there is a substantial range of products, particularly horticultural crops, which are not covered by the provisions of assured markets and guaranteed prices. … The Government fully recognise that other means of obtaining this object for these other commodities must be devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]
The Parliamentary Secretary of that time said that the Government was equally concerned to see that on the horticultural side of the industry there

was stability, and that the tariff position would not be overlooked when the Government had decided on the matters arising at Geneva; and he looked forward to seeing in the years to come horticulture playing its proper part in this country. He added:
the horticulturist has no reason to be discouraged, but he can look forward to continued progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th April, 1947; Vol. 436, c. 1504.]
Finally, the Parliamentary Secretary said that he hoped for a very large expansion of fruit production, and felt sure that horticulture would make its full contribution. The result of these promises has been, no tariff but colossal imports.
It is true that the times of imports have been controlled to some extent; but they have been very badly controlled. The example of onions has already been cited, so I shall not dwell on that. Last year 500 tons of Italian cherries were imported into this country five days before the English crop was ready to pick. The Parliamentary Secretary may say that it is very difficult to know exactly when the cherry crop is coming in. But every cherry grower will tell him that once the blossom has been seen he can reckon to within a few days when the fruit of the cherry will be ready to pick. Yet last year they imported Italian cherries five days before our own crop was ready.
My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) urged the Minister to send the imports he is bringing in up to the North, because they are starved of fruit whilst in the South we have too much. He said that the trouble was that the railways would not bring the empty boxes back. Therefore, the South of England could not supply the North, and this I confirm. Surely the solution would be for the imports to go direct to the North and the southern growers to provide for the southern consumers.
It is not only the time of the imports about which we complain but the place. I can bear out what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury as to Italian broccoli. I have seen them landed at London, Brighton and Portsmouth, which are all near the fields where the Kent and Cornish broccoli grow. All this is bad enough, but we now have thrust


upon us the Anglo-Dutch agreement. I understand that the N.F.U. were to be consulted about this, and they were. Then various recommendations were made to which the Farmers Union were not asked to agree, and there were no further consultations. That is the way the industry is being treated at the present time.
The result of this Anglo-Dutch Agreement is that tomato imports are going to be doubled. Not only that, but they are going to be brought in in August, in spite of the Minister's promise of over a year ago, that he would not bring tomatoes into this country after 31st July. He asked us earlier to grow them, and now he is swamping the market as well as allowing tomatoes to come in right into August. My hon. Friend mentioned that we were bringing in five times the quantity of gooseberries that we did previously. Imports of hothouse strawberries are to be up by 50 per cent. Yet we in this country had to grow tomatoes in our hothouses, at the same time as this luxury production from abroad is allowed to be brought in. Would it not be better to spend our money on feedingstuffs for animals rather than bringing in luxuries like hothouse strawberries. Fruit pulp is coming in in unlimited quantities. It is estimated that onions will come in this year at the rate of 250,000 tons. I asked the Minister of Food the other day what was the consumption of onions last year in this country. He replied it was 152,000 tons.

Mr. G. Brown: Which year?

Mr. Williams: Last year.

Mr. Brown: 1947–48?

Mr. Williams: 1948. I do not know why the Minister expects the consumption of onions suddenly to be doubled this year
Before I sit down I want to make some suggestions about this import trouble and how to get over it. In any agreements that are made a clause should be inserted to suspend imports if necessary. In other words, if there is going to be a glut on the home market we should arrange for a suspension of imports, or failing that we should arrange for less and bring in more at the last moment if necessary. That would be much better than bringing in too much and then trying to stop it at the last moment. Another

suggestion is that imports should be spread over the months to bring more regularity to trade. We must remember that we shall only be able to buy these imports if we sell the machinery we are making in this country. The time will come when we shall not be able to sell all that we have. We must prepare now against that day. We can grow in this country as well as anywhere else the horticultural food that we require. It is not like asking us to grow uneconomic crops like tobacco or oranges. We only want to grow stuff which we can grow economically and well.
Instead of all the troubles we are having the Minister ought to be looking after our marketing schemes. He has of course brought in a Marketing Bill, but growers are anxious to help with their own co-operative societies. In the case of the societies we have got going already, it has taken as long as 18 months to get licences out of the Ministry of Food. That is not helpful, and although I may not agree with an hon. Member opposite who described the Minister of Food as the "devil incarnate," he is certainly the "villain of the piece."
Is the Minister going to lend some capital to help these co-operative societies? Is he going to provide wood for boxes or supply boxes ready made? The Dutch have very few trees in the whole of their country, but they are able to get as many boxes as they want. I believe that the best boxes are those made out of white lime, a timber which Italy can supply and we want to help Italy if we can. We demand that the Minister will do something to get us boxes.
What I really want to know is who speaks for horticulture in the Cabinet. I know there is a representative there, but he must make his case extremely badly. Does the Prime Minister know that it has been announced in this House that more crops have been destroyed this year than in the past 20 years all put together. Does the Prime Minister know of the critical situation in which the horticulture industry is? If not I am going to take care to post him a copy of HANSARD so that he can read about this Debate.
I regret very much that there has not been a single Liberal present up to the moment, to put their case to the Prime


Minister. They represent many horticultural interests. We want cheap food and plenty of it. It would be much better to let private enterprise buy our meat; and to use our money to buy feedingstuffs to produce pork and eggs in this country. We want cheap horticultural products, and I believe we can grow these at home. At the same time we want support from the Government. Instead of that we see the Minister of Food smashing this vital industry and actually ruining the growers.

1.18 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In summing up this short Debate for the Conservative Opposition there are one or two questions I should like to put to the Parliamentary Secretary, who I understand is replying. While we do not question his competence to do so, I am sure that we are all sorry that other engagements should keep the Minister of Agriculture away. I hope that the presence of the Minister of Food here this morning does not account for the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. We have had a number of very interesting speeches, not the least interesting being the three from back bench Members of the Socialist Party. The speech of the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) was the conventional little essay with the conclusion that we all expected. I am sure we were all delighted to see him here with the red tie which he always wears when making speeches in the House of Commons—a tie which I venture to think we see more often than do his farming constituents in Somerset.
We were interested in some of the remarks he made. His figures were a little wild. The selling figures of the broccoli from Cornwall for example would certainly surprise the Cornish growers. He questioned the consumption of onions in this country, and in doing so he questioned the accuracy of the Ministry of Food. It was from the Ministry of Food that we obtained the figure that the monthly consumption of onions was 20,000 tons, which even under Socialist arithmetic adds up to 240,000 at the end of the year. The hon. Member for Taunton really agreed with our general contentions which have lead us to ask for this Debate. He asked which Minister speaks for horticulture, and he

mentioned that when questions were directed to the Minister of Agriculture it was the Minister of Food who answered and vice versa. He obviously shares with us our view that in this important field there is no proper Ministerial or Departmental co-operation. He ended with a plea that all our own growers who produced efficiently should find a secure market. That is all that we are asking, and it is because that is not so that we have promoted this Debate today.
The other two speeches were rather more remarkable. They were from the hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Daines) and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I am sorry that the hon. Member for East Ham, North, has left the Chamber. He said that we knew more about nonsense on this side of the House than he did. That must be my excuse for referring briefly to his speech, which was a typical Socialist speech. Whatever may be said when trying to woo the rural constituencies, the hon. Member spoke with the authentic voice of political Socialism. If a speech like that is heard in rural communities that may have been hovering in previous years on the balance between one party and another, I have very little doubt what their conclusions will be. The hon. Member spoke with the uninstructed voice of uninstructed consumers, whose policy in previous years has brought the primary producers all over the world to desperate plights. As to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton, he said no more than did the hon. Member for East Ham, North, but he said it even more offensively.
This is a Debate on commercial horticulture. We are now concerned with the livelihood of people who are being encouraged to get their livings out of commercial horticulture. The speeches from the other side of the House seem to have lost sight of the fact that we are referring to people who have been asked and encouraged to grow these crops. The fate of the crops is not only the personal concern of the people who grew them but is the concern of the Government that asked those people to grow them.
I would make one reference to the problem of people who grow their own vegetables for their own consumption, including the large army of allotment


holders in this country. The number of allotments was bound to come down in a steep decline after the war. That was obvious but it has declined rather more than we think it need have done. There are 300,000 people who have given up their allotments since this Government came into power, which means that some £5 million in value has been lost. The allotments advisory committee of the Ministry of Agriculture are preparing a report. We should be very grateful if the production of the report could he accelerated and if it could be published. Many of us have a keen interest in the allotment movement and think that it is very important to give it every encouragement.
Our main purpose today is to deal with the commercial horticulturist. This Debate has to be kept very short, only some two hours, and I must give the Minister time to reply. I therefore cannot deal with the big problem of marketing and distribution nor with the grading of the products themselves which are of the very greatest importance; nor can I deal with co-operative organisation among the producers, to which matter we also attach the greatest importance. None of those issues will be happily solved until there is greater co-ordination between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food, and until we have stability for British horticulture.
I would say in passing that I have read with interest the statement of Socialist policy published two days ago. I saw also with interest that there was no mention in the statement of implementing the Lucas Report. The problem with which it dealt is not so simple as some Socialist speakers in town districts, or the two hon. Members who have addressed us, would like to pretend. There is no evidence that any such scheme of marketing and distribution is likely to form part of Socialist policy. They have used these things in argument, but when a chance comes for them to put forward a plan for public acceptance in their next election programme it is conspicuously missing. When, a day or two ago, the Prime Minister made his astonishing statement that we had to buy abroad things that we did not really want, one hon. Member behind him asked him whether the problem of vegetable distribution could not be largely solved when marketing and distribution plans

had been rationalised. The Prime Minister nodded his head. There is no mention of the introduction of any scheme of rationalisation of this highly complicated business, because the Government know that this is not something which can be solved by putting forward a few political theories and that it requires a great deal more thought than they have Oven to it in previous years.
We attach great importance to the grading of home agricultural produce. We welcomed many years ago the national mark scheme and we deplore the fact that that scheme is not now in operation. We welcome the issue by the Ministry of Agriculture recently of recommended grades for root vegetables, broccoli and cauliflowers. I hope that the growers in my own Division will follow out the advice of the Ministry. These reports all demand suitable conditions at home. What is the good of telling the broccoli growers that if they grade their products they will get a better market, when statements are made such as that which was made by the Minister of Food on 21st March. He then said that he intended to use the price situation in order to give cheap broccoli to the British housewife without regard to the price at which it came into the country, whether it was being sold by the foreign exporter at a loss over here, and without regard to the effect on our own home growers.
Every horticulturist tries to make a profit averaging over the whole year and over the average of the products that he produces. They know that they may get no return or even a loss on some crops, but they hope they can get a better profit on some other crops than would otherwise content them. It does not always follow that it is in the public interest to import produce from abroad in such a way as will bring particular prices down. In regard to Cornish broccoli a most extraordinary situation seems to have arisen, because the National Farmers' Union were never properly consulted either about the postponement of the date of prohibiting new imports into this country or about doubling the overall total of broccoli that were coming in. They were told that the imports would be kept at the pre-war level, but they have gone up some 50 per cent. It means that people like myself who believe in market-


ing schemes and grading are confronted by our own constituents with the results of bringing in imports about which their elected leaders were not consulted at all.
The main purpose of the Debate is to deal with the lack of co-operation between the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Food. I know that the Minister of Food will forgive me if I say that he has done a great deal of harm already in his Ministerial career. I am not going into the meat muddle but there is one consequence of it which everyone expected, except the Minister of Food, and it was the falling off of the demand for vegetables. Until we have a sensible meat policy there will not be a stimulated demand for vegetables such as we all desire. My main complaint against him today is that his action and speeches have been wholly at variance with the speeches made by the Minister of Agriculture. It reminds me of a story about the Foreign Secretary. It is reported that the Foreign Secretary came back some years ago from a conference and was confronted with two totally different statements made by two Ministers in his own Cabinet, upon the same issue. The right hon. Gentleman replied: "There is too much damned private enterprise in this Socialist Government."
I know the real answer and I think we can sympathise with the Minister of Agriculture in the problems in which he now finds himself involved. We know that he wants to give security to horticulture. We know that he was behind his previous Parliamentary Secretary when our growers were told to look forward to continuous progress. We know that at Lincoln only a short while ago he said that the acreage under vegetables would be maintained, and that there would be an increase in the fruit acreage, and we know also that in connection with glasshouse acreage, arrangements are to be made for an annual increase of some 65 acres in the total area under glass. However, in making all these promises he reckoned without the Minister of Food who intends to use the price weapon to keep prices down.
The Minister of Food is doing pretty well. Over the last three years he has succeeded in causing hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of loss to British horticulturists who followed the advice

of the Minister of Agriculture. Let us take last year alone. I shall not go further back, although most people will remember 1946 and 1947 as well. In regard to 1948 and the lettuce situation, the imports in the first five months were above the 1947 level and over the year as a whole they were double what they were the year before. In my own constituency hundreds of acres were ploughed in, and a great many more were over the country as a whole.
Last year the same situation arose in regard to many other crops. Apple-growers were told by the right hon. Gentleman in July that there would be decontrol at the beginning of the season. They laid their plans accordingly. In September they were told that there would not be decontrol. It is rumoured that the Minister of Agriculture first heard about this decision when he turned on his wireless set at home. The Channel Islands, to which we are, quite rightly, sending money to help in the task of recovery, were told to grow more early potatoes last year, and they did so, and just as their potatoes were coming into this market, up went imports from Poland and Denmark.
The classic case is the situation in regard to onions. In my division it is calculated that last year some 30 per cent. of our entire onion crop was lost. If efficiently grown, onions cost some £75 an acre to grow, and of this bill some £50 goes in labour costs, so it is a very good crop from the workers' point of view. I could give the House dozens of instances of people who lost hundreds of pounds out of their very limited assets. What is true of onions is also true of leeks. The defence given by the Minister of Food and, from time to time, by the Minister of Agriculture is that they cannot budget for the home crop—

Mr. Daises: Mr. Daises rose—

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: When I referred to the hon. Member, he was not in his place, and I cannot give way now. If the hon. Member is not sufficiently interested to sit here for a short Debate of only two hours, I am not going to give way just to suit his convenience.
The Government's defence is that they cannot budget on what the home production will be because they do not know it. It would be difficult to find a more


futile argument. We have the cropping returns, the elaborate Ministry of Agriculture system under which the progress of the crops can be brought to the notice of the Government all the time. It is true that we have lost the Horticultural Advisory Committee and recently the Market Supply Committee, but there is no difficulty whatever in keeping the Government informed of the progress of home crops. Many instances could be cited of growers who knew what the yield would be, finding on the very eve of marketing their crop that the market had been flooded with imports. One would have thought that with our experience of last year, we should not be making the same mistake again, but in practice we are doing so.
This is where I come to the two recent trade treaties, one with Holland and one with Poland. They throw into sharp relief all the faults and failures of Government policy over the last three years. We do not deny the need to make treaties with foreign countries from time to time. I am very interested to find that the Minister of Food, for all his objection to General Franco, persists in buying Spanish oranges when it suits him. A very good thing too. I heard him muttering about that. We do not in the least quarrel with the making of commercial treaties, but we consider that it would have been possible to incorporate in them safeguards which would have protected the home grower and at the same time brought advantage to the British consumer.
I shall deal first with the Treaty with the Netherlands. There was no real consultation between the growers and the Government, and when the terms of the treaty were published, the National Farmers' Union stated that their horticultural section had heard of them with great astonishment. No attempt after first talks was made to ask them which were the suitable dates, how the imports could be spread more evenly over the whole importing year, or what safeguards should be incorporated if any one of the crops at home happened to produce an unexpectedly bumper yield. Tomatoes have been mentioned. I shall not go into detail as to what we shall have from Holland except to say that up to 30th June it is more than Holland has ever produced before. We are, therefore,

creating a new industry there while we are harming our own industry.
At the same time our own hothouse growers are struggling under renewed difficulties caused largely by the Minister of Fuel and Power. In my constituency in the last few months the substitution of coke for coal has sent up the cost on two and a half acres of glass by some £325 a year to growers who get no guaranteed price, as the Dutch do on two-thirds of their crop, and who cannot get non-returnable containers but are subjected to the full force of this competition. As to onions, all the experience of the last year seems to have been forgotten, although we are glad that there is to be a review of the situation before 15th September.
However, we recognise the need to make an agreement with Holland. When Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was over here during the war, he came down to a non-political gathering in my constituency and was cheered, as was the Kingdom of Holland. At the end he said to me, "I wonder what will happen when the Dutch market gardeners want to send their produce to England after the war. Will they cheer me then as they are cheering me now?" I said what I thought was true, that it would be possible to work out harmonious and complementary arrangements between our countries. However, complementary arrangements demand that our own producers are brought into the picture from the very beginning, but they have not been brought in.
The considerations which apply to the Christian State of Holland, which is playing a large part in European and Western European recovery, do not apply at present to the over-run State of Poland which has temporarily fallen behind the Iron Curtain. The new Treaty raises quite different considerations. It may be that one day we shall regret the £20 million of capital equipment and the oil and the rubber which we are sending to Poland. I am sure we shall regret the fact that we are buying their bacon and eggs rather than that of the Canadians. I know that our growers here deeply regret the large volume of horticultural products, rising in the case of onions to 60,000 tons a year, which we are now obliged to take from Poland. It is a justifiable grievance that there was no negotiation with the growers' representatives. I join my hon. Friend the


Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) in urging that we should insert in these agreements safeguarding clauses under which the terms can be varied if we produce unexpectedly large quantities at home, that we should rely more on ad hoc imports, which as in the case of the Dutch tomatoes they are able to send when we want them, than on long term agreements and that we should spread the imports more evenly over the whole importing year.
I hope that we shall do something to restore the specific import duties on horticultural produce coming into England which in pre-war years limited the quantity which entered when the price declined at home but did not limit the quantity entering when the price at home rose. In my own constituency, for example, if growers knew that lettuce was coming down from 2s. 6d. to 2s. per crate of two dozen they would know that imports would stop. Last year they would have known that if onions came down to as low as £12 per ton, the imports would stop, but if the home crop was either so small or the home growers so misguided as to raise the price unduly, then the specific import duties allowed for the entry of imported produce.
This is, in part, a world problem, but only in part. Insofar as it is a world problem, we of the Conservative Party wish the International Federation of Agricultural Producers, who are having their conference on horticulture in London this month, every success in working out a European partnership in regard to these problems. However, it is not only a world problem, it is also a domestic problem, and it is because we believe that the interests of our domestic growers are not safe in the hands of the Government where the Minister of Food is a more powerful figure than the Minister of Agriculture, that we have asked for this Debate today.

1.41 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. George Brown):: I think that last remark is in many ways typical of the speeches we have had from the other side in this Debate and typical of the kind of repetition of assertions, which are no more than assertions, backed up with an extraordinary amount of intemperate

extravagance of language of which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) is such a perfect exponent.
We have said again and again that so far as these two Departments are concerned there is the closest consultation and discussion about all these things. If hon. Members on the other side of the House are determined not to believe it, then nobody can do anything about it and they must go on in their determination of misbelief. I hope to show that, in order to back up their assertions of misbelief, they indulge in the most extraordinary, contradictory, self-destructive arguments. Before I come to that, let me say a word or two about the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford. Then I want to talk on the general issues raised, and finally I hope to pick up one or two of the specific issues.
On the question of consultation, the hon. Gentleman referred to the Polish Agreement and said that the producers were not consulted. He made the same allegation about changes in the Netherlands Agreement. Let us get it clear that it is certainly our business—and we have followed it out far better than any Government which went before—to have the closest consultation in general terms on general issues with the producers in this field. If hon. Members opposite ever hope to get back to this side of the House, they ought not to try to establish that any Government negotiating a general commercial agreement are bound at one stage to say, "Will you hold this up until we get to our people at home and get permission to sign the agreement?" That is a fantastic suggestion. On the question of consultation nobody on that side of the House has faced up to one important thing. I have seen the briefs which hon. Gentlemen—in some cases reasonably, in other unreasonably—have spoken from but no one refers to the fact that at the end of 1946 there were long and close discussions between the Ministry of Agriculture, the producers and the Ministry of Food about the terms of licences and imports of vegetable products, and so on for the following year, and that in almost every case the amendments that the producers wanted were made. On hardly any issue at all have we deviated from that 1946 Agreement. Indeed, the Netherlands Agreement does not infringe it at all.
Therefore, if we have had consultations with the producers on the broad issues, if we have got as near as damn it—I beg your pardon, Sir—if we have as nearly as possible—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"]—got an agreement with them about the details, and our subsequent negotiations—except for the little give and take that goes on in national negotiations—are within the four walls of that, I say we have had all the consultation it is reasonable to expect. The next thing we have to do is what we have done, to see to it that at the termination of negotiations the producers are told straight away, if possible before publicity is given to it, of what has happened, where they stand, and how it fits in with what has been done. All that has been done, and to that extent, I say there is nothing in this allegation that we do not consult with the producers or that there is subsequently no co-ordination between the two Departments in following up.
So far as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford is concerned, in addition to his extravagance of language, he showed the engaging little trait of being slightly inaccurate on detail. The hon. Gentleman talked about the importation of leeks and about the importation of new potatoes from Denmark.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: All I said was that the importation of onions had destroyed the leek crop.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to have given the hon. Gentleman a chance of making that clear. One other thing—slightly by the way but I had better deal with it—is that the hon. Gentleman asked why we bought Polish bacon instead of Canadian bacon. We are not discussing bacon, but the currency used for one is not the currency used for another. We have had a long Debate for a week about our currency difficulties. It is impossible to discuss this without taking into account any of these other things.
May I say one word about the hon. Gentleman's comment on my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). The hon. Gentleman said that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend would be heard with interest in the rural areas. I believe it will. I think it was hon. Baronet the Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) who interjected at the time of the speech,

"I wonder how many votes that will lose?" Honesty in politics in this country never lost any votes at all, but political opportunism of the kind the other side are now applying will cost them dear. It is not at all a bad thing that somebody should say to the countryside—and somebody who is as closely concerned as my hon. and learned Friend who has taken such a courageous stand—that somebody should say to the countryside—I am myself prepared to say it and am continually saying it—

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Major Sir Thomas Dugdale (Richmond) rose—

Mr. Brown: Let me finish—that somebody should say to the countryside and to the farmers that they are entitled to the best protection within the national interest that can be given them.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I did not say that.

Mr. Brown: It is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite talking as though they are "a farm lobby," as they say in the United States, whose sole job it is to press for one section of the community without considering the others.

Sir T. Dugdale: As the hon. Gentleman has referred to me, let us have it quite clearly on record that the Parliamentary Secretary agrees with what the hon. and learned Member for Northampton said in his speech, and that it is the view of the Government on these matters.

Mr. Brown: No. The hon. Baronet is now trying the oldest trick in the world. I was nailing him down in his statement that the fact that my hon. and learned Friend has spoken his courageous belief would lose votes. I am saying that to say that kind of thing, if one believes it, to the farmers of this country is a much better service than to talk sheer political opportunism of which we have heard rather more than I think is good this afternoon. Now may I say a word about one or two of the general issues that have been raised?

Major Legge-Bourke: Major Legge-Bourke (Isle of Ely) rose—

Mr. Brown: I had better get on because we are limited in time. The hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate began with the general allegation—referred to again and again, and to which I myself referred just now—that we have not had proper


consultation with the industry over the Netherlands Agreement. I hope I have made it quite clear that within the terms of the 1946 Agreement we had complete consultation with them about the licences, the dates, and all those other things, and that we have not departed from it. Indeed—and this may be news to the hon. Gentleman—this year we have brought the period of the open general licence for Netherlands tomatoes back to 30th June from where it was before. So in that sense we have moved even further than we were pressed to do by the producers. We have not violated in any way the terms of that 1946 Agreement, except in regard to one very minor detail which has not been mentioned in the Debate and really is not very important.

Mr. Turton: What is the violation?

Mr. Brown: The only difference is a very minor one affecting radishes.
What we must get into our minds and the minds of our constituents is that we must get this whole problem into proper perspective. It has never been suggested by my right hon. Friend, nor by anybody else associated with the Ministry, that the sharp increase of vegetable production that occurred during the war could go on at the same rate afterwards. It has been said again and again that, broadly speaking, we must maintain the acreage at its war-time level. That has been the sense of the undertaking, and we have not departed from it. But in 1948 the acreage put down to vegetables in this country was 16,000 acres greater than in 1947, which was itself much greater than during war time. It is not that we have led growers to go on increasing; for reasons best known to themselves—this is what clashes so absurdly with the extravagance of the arguments from the other side—they have gone on increasing the acreage put down to vegetables. If it were allowed to go on at that rate, it could not be alleged that we have somehow violated the encouragement we have given to them. It would mean simply that the line—the encouragement—that we have taken has to a large extent been disregarded.
On top of that, let us get quite clearly the position about imports. The pre-war total of imports of vegetables of the kind

we have been discussing was 440,000 tons annually; in 1947 it was 424,000 tons; in 1948, 395,000 tons; so that it is considerably less—and less even in 1948 than in 1947—in both these years than before the war. We are not, therefore, flooding the market or bringing in surplus goods for dumping, as one hon. Member has said. In fact, imports are at a very ordinary and controlled rate at any time.

Major Legge-Bourke: The hon. Gentleman says that there has been a steady decrease in the amount of imports. Would he now say, then, whether there has been a change of policy, in view of the fact that the Anglo-Polish Agreement for onions aims at bringing in more and more each year?

Mr. Brown: There has been no change of policy. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will wait, I will try in the limits of time left to me to deal with all these points.

Mr. Baker White: The figures which the hon. Gentleman has quoted are not those as given in the Trade and Navigation Returns, which show that imports for 1947 were 29 million cwts. and in 1948, 34 million cwts.; that the value of imports in 1947 was £82 million odd and in 1948, £96 million.

Mr. Brown: The value of the imports does not enter into the argument; I am dealing with tonnage, but with a little mental arithmetic I shall try to reconcile the figures. As I understand it, the tonnage figures were 424,000 tons in 1947, and 395,000 tons in 1948.

Mr. Baker White: Mr. Baker White rose—

Mr. Brown: It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman to choose two particular figures. I have not had a chance to see them, but when I come to them I think I will be able to find the means of reconciliation without any great difficulty.
I was very glad to hear some discussion today on constructive points and on the question of what ought to be done. Let me say something about the undertaking which the Minister gave at the time the 1947 Act passed through this House. He then said:
… the Government fully recognise that there is a substantial range of products, particularly horticultural crops, which are not


covered by the provision of assured markets and guaranteed prices, although they are, in fact, subject to the efficiency test under Part II. I want to make it clear that it is the Government's intention that the general objective in Clause 1 shall apply to the industry as a whole, and that they fully recognise that other means of obtaining this object for these other products must be devised."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1947; Vol. 432, c. 631.]
That was the Minister's statement, and it is still the view of the Government, but there are responsibilities all round about this. One of the reasons I was glad to hear part of the speech of the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) was that it clearly recognised the extent to which producers themselves have responsibilities in this field. Many people have thought—and several hon. Gentlemen opposite have mentioned it—that one of the chief needs of the horticultural industry is organisation amongst its own producers. The Government believe that that view is right. It is for the industry itself to remedy the lack of organisation, with all the help which the Government can give, and will be glad to give, in this field.
Already this Government have made available a new form of organisation through the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947. Moreover, the Government have in the last few months asked Parliament to approve a Bill to amend the Agricultural Marketing Acts, to ensure that marketing schemes can be brought into being under post-war conditions with the full backing of Parliament and of public opinion. Already a scheme to regulate the marketing of tomatoes and cucumbers has been submitted to the Minister and we are now considering with the promoters what amendments need to be made before it is presented. Other individual crops may well be suitable subjects for marketing schemes. It may well be, however, that the time is not yet ripe for a scheme under the Marketing Acts to cover the whole range of horticultural crops, and it is possible that the necessary basic organisation could be more quickly and more easily provided by a Development Council scheme under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act.
There is much to be done in the field of horticulture. During the war years, as somebody on this side has said, quality had to be sacrificed for quantity, and the

industry has to regain the ground lost during the war years and to reintroduce the general practice of quality grading. In this big industry we are trying to help with new grades. A number of graded products have been introduced in the past 12 months or so, in agreement with the industry, and are being tried out. There is a good deal to be done and, as somebody—again, on this side—said, and as the hon. Gentleman seemed to recognise, we must concentrate no less upon the constructive side of this discussion than upon the purely destructive attempt to prove that there is something wrong.
Let me refer now to tomatoes. It has been alleged that the Ministry's agreement with the Netherlands (a) was silly because it includes more than they can produce and (b) will damage our own industry. Let us be quite clear. We do not buy these tomatoes. We undertake to let in under open general licence for a limited period—and limited quantities for a different period—such tomatoes as private enterprise here is willing to buy and for which it thinks it can find a market. If the market is not here, the tomatoes will not come in. There is no guarantee; no Government bulk buying of 23,000 tons of tomatoes from the Netherlands. Several hon. Gentlemen seemed to misunderstand this. The position is that of the 23,000 tons mentioned for this year something like 9,000 tons will come in under the controlled period after the open general licence period has ended. That leaves 14,000 tons, at the most, to come in under open general licence. I have seen figures indicating that the producers' representatives themselves have talked in terms of 12,500 tons, so that if the worst happened—if that is the right word to use—and all that quantity came in, it would not be substantially outside the figures that producers' representatives have themselves been talking about for that period. There is, therefore, no dumping, no sudden bringing in of a surplus.
I think it was the hon. Member for Tonbridge (Mr. G. Williams) who raised the point about bringing in quantities in August. While he was speaking I hurriedly looked up the sort of prices operating last year. I find that in the third week of August the wholesale price was 24s. for 12 lbs., compared with 14s. 1d. for the same period in 1947.


13s. in 1946 and 4s. 6d. for the same period in 1938, which is the period to which hon. Gentlemen seem to want to return. The price last year, therefore, became absurdly high and began to have its own bad effect on producers because it began to kill the market amongst them. To that extent, we cannot say that there is not a market for some importations from Holland in August.
I turn now to onions. It is very easy to get the picture out of perspective. I have said in the country to onion producers, and I say again here, that so far as last year was concerned, everybody was being wise after the event.

Major Legge-Bourke: No, they were not.

Mr. Brown: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says that they were not, but if he will allow me to continue I will repeat that they were. The quantities to be imported under the Agreement and the period of the closed season were agreed upon at the time the 1946 Agreement was drawn up. We did not infringe that at all. That applied in 1947. We had no representations at all at the beginning of 1948 that it should not apply then. It was not until we were all wise after the event that the producers themselves began to feel that in the light of what had happened, we should have made a change. Everyone was wise after the event. The maximum crop of onions we had before last year was 75,000 tons. In the event, last year, because of the kind of year it was, we got 125,000 tons. The difference was so enormous that we were faced with a sudden and unprecedented jump forward which made a difficulty which no one, producers or anyone else, could foresee. I was glad to hear the hon. Member mention, and I see that the producers have expressed appreciation of the fact, that for 1949 we have made the arrangement more flexible so that we can decide what amount we shall need. I repeat that there was nothing for which we alone, or the industry or anyone could be held responsible.
There has been a discussion as to the actual figure of consumption of onions and the bearing which it may have on the amount we let in. The hon. Member for Tonbridge quoted 152,000 tons. I gather he was talking of the year July, 1947, to June, 1948. The best estimate that can

be made and which I think my hon. Friend has given, and which the hon. Member for Mid-Bedford repeated, is that this year the consumption will be more of the order of 240,000 tons to 250,000 tons. If we look at the pre-war figures we find that home production was only 7,000 tons. Vegetable growers are being told what the party opposite would do for them but we can remember that there were only 7,000 tons from home growers when they had power and the importation was 250,000 tons. If we compare the percentage of 250,000 tons brought in and only 7,000 tons from home growers, with the position now, there can be no question of which party has provided a market for the output by home growers. I believe there is little or no case at all in this onions question if one looks at the figures.

Major Legge-Bourke: Will the hon. Member allow me?—

Mr. Brown: No, I cannot give way, because I have already gone over time and it is very unfair to other back bench Members. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. D. Marshall) raised the question of Cornish broccoli growers. If he will look at the prices which Cornish broccoli has made throughout the season and the prices ruling yesterday for Cornish cauliflowers and ruling today, he will see that it is absurd to say that imports have broken the Cornish market, or badly hurt Cornish growers. It is not true on the figures. The time when I heard most complaint was in the early part of the season when we let in such a small amount of cauliflowers that it could not hurt home growers. It was the good year, and competition from other parts of the country when Cornishmen were expecting the market to be theirs alone, that caused the difficulty.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Dames) is entitled to his views. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedford, who tried to make a little mischief about this, will perhaps understand that we are a party which believes in the individual rights of Members to hold individual views—[Interruption.] The hon. Member may find that very difficult to understand, in view of his own party experience; but it is different on this side. At the same time, the fact of my hon. Friend holding a different view does not


absolve me from the duty of countering that view. My hon. Friend must be careful, as some of the things he said might be unfair and somewhat dangerous to workers in whom he and I reckon to have an interest.
It is no use talking as though the home horticultural industry is getting too much unless we take into the account the condition of the workers in that industry. Many of them had shocking conditions at the same time that farmers had bad prices under the regime of the party opposite. The workers in the horticultural and farming industry are enjoying better conditions now than ever before and many are members of the local consumers' cooperative societies in their areas. It is no use talking as if we want to get the industry back to what it was before the war, or as though my right hon. Friend is in some way playing a Codlin and Short game, and talking about shovelling out millions every time we want a new emphasis in our policy. We have to take into account the fact that we are asking small farmers to produce certain kinds of arable crops in conditions under which they would not normally produce them, if left to themselves. If we want them to produce those crops, we must give them conditions to insure them against the costs and difficulties on which they embark.
The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) referred to the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland was not here and that he knew that I could not answer him. As I have made many attempts and have never succeeded in answering him yet, I am coming to the belief that he was right. I went to considerable lengths to find out which Minister, or Ministers, were wanted by the hon. Members raising the Debate. At one time we considered having two speeches from the Government Front Bench, because it was thought that hon. Members opposite wanted to hear from the Ministry of Food as well. But we came to the conclusion that that would be unfair on back benchers. As hon. Members said that they wanted a reply from the Ministry of Agriculture, I have replied to the Debate. It is unfair to say that there was any discourtesy to the House.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In fairness to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan), I should

say that while we recognise that there could only be one answer there is no reason why my hon. and gallant Friend should not want a representative of the Scottish Office to be present. But one Ministerial speech is quite enough.

Mr. Brown: I am glad to have the ready admission of the hon. Member that my speech has been quite sufficient to demolish the case which has been put up. There is nothing in Conservative past or Conservative present policy that leads one to believe that they would deal with this any differently.—[Laughter.]—To say they would deal with it no differently is not to say that they would not do it worse—the two things can be true at once. In the Conservative Charter they say that fruit and vegetables are perishable and that it is therefore impracticable to guarantee prices for them, and that is what we say—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."]—What we then go on to say, and what they say, is that other means should be found. They talk about tariffs but we are operating quantative limits on imports, closed periods and general licences. There is the closest co-operation between the two Departments and I hope I have shown that the case of the Opposition is as untrue as it is extravagant.

JERUSALEM (INTERNATIONALISATION)

2.10 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: The question which I am now raising is one which has been too seldom discussed in this House in recent months. Almost a year ago, on 13th May, the day before we gave up the Mandate, the hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) made a moving appeal for a truce between the potential contenders in the Holy City, but in the present Session the only reference to this question of which I am aware was that made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) on 26th January when he said:
I see no chance of a secure and proper international organisation to look after the Holy places of Greater Jerusalem unless we and the United States get together very soon indeed. I hope we shall insist that it is an international organisation. … I notice that Mr. Ben-Gurion"—
who I may remind the House is Prime Minister of Israel—
recently said that the Jews will never abandon their claim to Jerusalem. If that is the


attitude of Mr. Ben-Gurion—and I hope it is not—I trust that the Government of the United States and of this country will not be slow to see that the position is made clear, and the sooner that is done the better …." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th Jan., 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1039.]
Those words are even more pertinent now than when they were uttered by my hon. Friend. I would point out that in that Debate there was an ominous silence on the part of both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister about this question. The Jews, who once accepted the internationalisation of Jerusalem when it was proposed by the United Nations Special Committee, and accepted by the General Assembly, as part of a general settlement for Palestine, now seem likely to present the world with the accomplished fact of the incorporation of Jerusalem in Israel.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member is not going to put the position in that way. It is quite true that they accepted it as part of a general settlement but the accomplished facts which followed were not of their initiation. After their acceptance of the general arrangements, of which this was a part, they were invaded by the armies of five neighbouring countries, and their population in Jerusalem had to fight for its life until it was nearly extinct.

Mr. Thomas: I am not going into the 'general question of Palestine, and I was very careful to say that the Jews accepted the internationalisation of Jerusalem as part of a general proposal for Palestine.

Mr. Silverman: Which everybody else rejected.

Mr. Thomas: I was careful in the words I used not to be unfair to the Jews in any respect. I am, in this Debate, concerned solely with the question of the internationalisation of the Holy Places, and it is more than likely I am afraid, that we shall very shortly be presented with an accomplished fact in respect of those places.

Dr. Segal: To which Holy Places is the hon. Member referring? He should make it clear whether he is referring to the Holy Places in the Old City or to the Holy Places in the Jewish part

of Jerusalem, which are in no way interfered with, but are allowed to enjoy complete autonomy.

Mr. Thomas: I can be trusted to make that clear in my speech. Mr. Ben-Gurion's words have now been followed by actions. The Consultative Assembly of the State of Israel has been held in Jerusalem, and Ministries are being transferred to that city. It is obvious that there is urgent need to make it clear beyond a peradventure that the incorporation of Jerusalem in the State of Israel would not be acceptable to world opinion. I wish to make it quite clear, especially to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), that I am not making any suggestion that the Holy Places would be any less safe in Jewish hands than they would be in any other hands.

Mr. Silverman: We must get clear what we are talking about. There are no Holy Places in Jewish hands. All the Holy Places are in the Old City, and the Jews are not there.

Mr. Thomas: That is not the case. For example, today the Christian world is observing Maundy Thursday, and to the best of my belief the place of the Last Supper is in Jewish hands at the present time.

Mrs. Leah Manning: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Thomas: I know the district well, I have been there. It is no use arguing with me on this subject.

Dr. Segal: Dr. Segal rose—

Mr. Thomas: I shall not give way to the hon. Member again. I do not think that he would have a useful contribution to make by intervening. I wish to make it quite clear, despite these interruptions, that I am not making any suggestion that the Holy Places would be less safe in Jewish hands than they would be in other hands.
The only observation I would make in regard to that point is that it would be a new task for the Jews. The Arabs have, over the course of centuries, developed a pattern of behaviour with respect to the protection of the Holy Places, and they could be trusted to continue. We, the British, faithfully observed the Mandate in the spirit of


Allenby's famous Proclamation, and the Holy Places would have been safe in our hands. The Jews would, as I say, be embarking upon a new task and would of course find many problems in handling it. I am quite certain that they would wish to preserve the Holy Places inviolate for the three faiths to which they are sacred.
My contention in this Debate, and I hope that it will have the assent of the greater part of the House, is that the only regime which can be acceptable for Jerusalem is an international one, for the simple reason that Jerusalem and its surroundings are sacred to three faiths, and therefore must never become the possession of one. I do not make the claim that there ought to be a Christian regime. I make the claim that there ought to be an international regime for precisely that reason. This has been the attitude taken by every authoritative commission on this subject. Our own Royal Commission in 1937 said:
The partition of Palestine is subject to the overriding necessity of keeping the sanctity of Jerusalem and Bethlehem inviolate and of ensuring free and safe access to them for all the world.
The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine said:
The City of Jerusalem shall be placed under an International Trusteeship System by means of a Trusteeship Agreement which shall designate the United Nations as the Administering Authority in accordance with Article 81 of the Charter of the United Nations.
The Mediator, Count Bernadotte, just before his lamented death said:
The City of Jerusalem, which should be understood as covering the area defined in the resolution of the General Assembly of 29th November, and be treated separately, and should be placed under effective United Nations control with the maximum feasible local autonomy for its Arab and Jewish communities, with full safeguards for the protection of the Holy Places and sites and free access to them and for religious freedom.
The right of unimpeded access to Jerusalem, by road, rail or air should be fully respected by all parties.
Lastly, and perhaps the most important of all for our present purpose, the Conciliation Committee which was set up by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December, on the initiative of His Majesty's Government, had among its terms of reference:

To ensure the protection of the Holy Places, with guarantees of full access thereto; to secure the demilitarisation and internationalisation of Jerusalem.
I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, who is to reply to this Debate, will tell me what is being done to fulfil that instruction to the Conciliation Committee which was set up on our initiative. Will he, in particular tell me what leaders of the Christian communities it has consulted? Can he assure me that it is pursuing this part of its mandate energetically, and that it will not rest content until the internationalisation of Jerusalem has been achieved? I ask that question particularly because there is a very special danger at the present time. His Majesty's Government in the past have frequently said that they would accept any solution for Palestine which was acceptable both to the Jews and the Arabs. I think that in the circumstances of the time, and in the context of a general solution for Palestine, that was a sound policy. But in the circumstances of the present day, and in relation to the question of the Holy Places, there is a great danger that Arabs and Jews may be able to reach an agreement among themselves which the Government would automatically feel compelled to accept, but which would in fact sacrifice Christian interests throughout the world.

Mr. Silverman: What interests would it sacrifice?

Mr. Thomas: The interests to which I am referring are twofold. I may as well make it clear now. In the first place the protection of the Holy Places and safe access thereto, and in the second place—and I use words used by the Jews themselves for a long time—that Christians should have a place in Palestine to which they can go by right and not on sufferance. Those are the two elements in the policy which we should seek. I should like an assurance from the Under-Secretary that that is the policy of the Government, and that, irrespective of any agreement which might be reached between Jews and Arabs they will regard themselves as having a direct interest in this question. This has been the permanent international interest in Palestine for many centuries. It has been the main British interest in Palestine since the year 1090 A.D. and it is difficult to find any


other policy held so continuously. It stirred us in distant centuries to send forth men to fight for those things in Palestine, and I hope we shall not hear that the sole interest of the Government in Palestine is in strategic considerations and in the oil question. I trust we shall hear that the Government do realise that Christians throughout the world have a deep and abiding interest and that the Government will be prepared to stand up for that interest.
If it is contended that the Arabs and Jews have an interest in Palestine I would point out that Christians throughout the world have an even greater interest. If it is pointed out that Jewry is a world force, and that Islam is a world force, I hope it will be remembered that Christianity is a world force. There are throughout the world 700 million Christians to whom the question I am raising is one of the utmost interest, and there is a danger that in the present military situation, when the Arabs have been defeated by force of arms, there may be something in the nature of a "swap" on the spot between Jews and Arabs. For example, the Hebrew University and the Hadassah hospital are in Arab-held land. The road to Bethlehem, which is itself in Arab land, is controlled by the Jews, and therefore the Arabs have no means of access from Jerusalem to Bethlehem. It is conceivable that some exchange might be arranged locally. I would urge the Government not to accept such an arrangement for it would be a sacrifice of those great Christian interests throughout the world. Incidentally the Christian Arabs in such places as Katamon would be left isolated in the State of Israel. In normal times there were 120,000 Christian Arabs in Palestine.
Let me answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) who asked me to state precisely the area for which I am asking. This international régime which I am seeking cannot be confined to the old city of Jerusalem. It would be quite impracticable so to do. Hon. Members who know the Old City will recall that it consists of very narrow streets sometimes built in terraces and in which no wheeled traffic can move about. It would be quite impossible to build a headquarters for an international régime there. It would be merely of an island

in the surrounding territory, on which it would be completely dependent, and so an international régime in the Old City would be quite impracticable. That was pointed out some while ago in a letter in "The Times" by that excellent mayor of Jerusalem, Mr. R. M. Graves. There are a very large number of sites sacred to Christians which are not in the Old City of Jerusalem. If we may follow the memorable track which will be commemorated throughout the Christian world today and tomorrow, there is the site of the Last Supper, which I have mentioned; the Brook Kedron, and the Garden of Gethsemane. These are outside the Old City and it is inconceivable that they should not be brought into an international régime. The Mount of Olives and Bethany are also outside the walls. It is equally inconceivable that Bethlehem should be left out of such a régime.
So far as Greater Jerusalem is concerned, we should clearly abide by the frontiers laid down by the United Nations special committee, that is that the area should stretch to a point south of Bethlehem in the South, to 'Ein Karim in the West, to Abu Dir in the East and in Shu' Fat in the North. I would make one plea which goes beyond that area. It is true that the whole of Palestine is sacred to the three Faiths, and indeed it ought to be all a Holy Land. I recognise that it is impossible to have enclaves dotted about all over the country. But I would urge that Nazareth should be included as an enclave in any international régime; the special reasons will be obvious. In normal times Nazareth was almost entirely a Christian Arab city.
This week in normal times Jerusalem would be thronged with pilgrims from all over the world. I am afraid that will not be so today. It can be said of Jerusalem today as was said by one of the ancient writers of the country:
The mourners go about the streets and the sound of the grinding is low.
On such a day I hope the Under-Secretary will be able to assure us that the policy of the Government is governed not only by considerations of a material order, but that they attach paramount importance to the two points which I have mentioned: the protection of the Holy Places and safe access thereto, and the


giving to Christians of a place in Palestine to which we can go by right and not on sufferance.

2.28 p.m.

Mrs. Leah Manning: I intervene mainly to try to dispel some of the confusion imported into this Debate by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). It is true that in 1947 the Jews accepted the Statute of Jerusalem which was intended to give an international force for the whole of Jerusalem. I do not think they ever imagined at that time, when they accepted that Statute, that within a very short period New Jerusalem, with 100,000 Jewish people living in it, would be assaulted by five armies or subjected to the awful tortures of modern warfare as it was. They feel today that any international force for the whole of Jerusalem would never protect Jerusalem, or the 100,000 Jews who live there, in days when the world as a whole is in a very tense and difficult situation. They cannot help feeling that. They realise what has happened in the past and they look forward with dread to what may happen in the future if the whole of Jerusalem should be under international control.
I think that most of the Jewish community in the Holy Land, in Israel, and the Jewish people of this country, many of whom have been to see me on this question, are putting forward a compromise which ought to be acceptable to the hon. Member and the Foreign Office. It ought to be acceptable to all of us who follow the Christian faith and who, like the hon. Member for Keighley, desire to see the Holy Places safe, with reasonably safe access to them. It is a reasonable compromise to ask that the old Walled City, wherein are what are, and always have been, known as the Holy Places, should be under international control.
I agree with the hon. Member for Keighley that the Holy Places should be inviolate. Not only our own Holy Places but those of Islam and of the Jewish faith should be under international control. All should be under international control, and access to them should be safe. I entirely agree with that, but today, after we have arrived at this precarious and difficult situation, after a period of bloody warfare when one considers the small area of the territory over which it was

fought, after having arrived at a balance now, nothing should be done to upset that balance or to give rise to what I thought was the rather bad feeling expressed in the speech of the hon. Gentleman.
I trust that the Under-Secretary will assure us that the Holy Places will be safe, that access will be easy to anyone who wishes to visit them, but that the Walled City, in which it is possible to set up international control and international buildings, will be under international control. I am as keen about that as the hon. Member for Keighley or anyone in this country of Christian faith. I go further than that and say that to internationalise the whole of the New City, with its 100,000 Jewish inhabitants, would be to upset the delicate and precarious situation which has been reached after years of terrible warfare. I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some hope that, on the one hand, we shall have the Holy Places of the Walled City internationalised but, on the other hand, the New City of Jerusalem with its 100,000 Jewish people will be part of Israel, as the Jews of that community and elsewhere desire.

2.33 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I am sure that the House has been much impressed by the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning). From time to time she has made speeches in this House of a highly practical character, making suggestions for a constructive policy. Throughout the world today Christian feeling is centred upon Jerusalem. In every branch of the Christian Church the ceremonies which take place today, tomorrow and on succeeding days will be centred upon that tragic and terrible story with which Jerusalem has been identified in the whole course of history. I am anxious to say that the Catholic Church would like to be associated with any movement for the safeguarding of the Holy Places, for the reasons indicated so vividly by the hon. Lady in her charming speech. The question of the safety of the Holy Places has given profound concern to members of all branches of the Christian Church throughout the world.
I should like to quote to the House the attitude of the Catholic Church on this matter as indicated in an encyclical letter from the Pope on 24th October last year. In that letter the Pope indicated from the point of view of the Catholic Church the attitude which we seek to take. The encyclical states:
We are full of faith that these prayers and these hopes"—
he was referring in general terms to the unhappy situation in Palestine at that time when Jews and Arabs were at each other's throats, when the outlook was confused and obscure and it was difficult to see daylight—those were the circumstances in which he referred to prayers—
… will strengthen the conviction in the high quarters in which the problems of peace are discussed that it would be opportune to give Jerusalem and its outskirts"—
here the encyclical differs substantially from the point of view expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Epping—
… an international character. It would also be necessary to assure, with international guarantees, both free access to Holy Places scattered throughout Palestine, and the freedom of worship and the respect of customs and religious traditions.
That encyclical is not merely confined to the Catholic Church. It expresses the faith of all Christian peoples in their anxiety that the Holy Places should be preserved. From time to time in this House I have called the attention of the Foreign Secretary to the immense feeling in Christian circles on the question of the safety of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. Anyone who has had the privilege, as I had in the old days, of visiting the Holy Places would feel it a terrible crime against civilisation, against humanity, against all faiths of the Christian Church, against Mohammedanism and the Jews, if the Holy Places were not regarded with the veneration attached to them down the centuries since the beginning of the Christian era.
I support the view held by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas). At the same time I am bound to observe that I cannot help feeling the substance of the observations made by the hon. Member for Epping. What she said must give serious concern to the Foreign Office. A compromise must be effected so that these Holy

Places, which have been the object of pilgrimages throughout the Christian era, in which we in this country took a profound interest in the days of the Crusades, when the whole of Europe was stirred to its depths, shall be preserved for the future. Then Christian communities throughout the world will feel that the action of His Majesty's Administration, side by side with the Government of the United States, will secure for the future of Christianity the opportunity of visiting with veneration and attachment these shrines in the Holy Land.

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: The hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) has put the point of view of the Roman Catholic faith for which he speaks, and he has recognised that this matter is one of concern to all Christians, and indeed to a great many non-Christians. There are a few places which are the shrines not of any one race or creed but of humanity, and Jerusalem is one of them. It is most appropriate that on this day in Holy Week, before we adjourn for Easter, we should express our concern in this House for the safety of the Holy Places in Jerusalem and the widespread demand for an administration which will ensure free access to those places which have been venerated and hallowed throughout the centuries.
The hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) referred to some remarks I made about a year ago at a time when the Secretary of State for the Colonies replied, because then we had a responsibility for Palestine, including Jerusalem, which we no longer have. Although we no longer have any responsibility, we have a deep and direct concern which it is right we should express. I have not had the advantage which the hon. Members for Keighley and Moseley have had in visiting the Holy Places, but we should remember that they are venerated by very many people who have never been there, and, indeed, are never likely to have an opportunity of going there, either on a pilgrimage or any other visit. They have acquired through the centuries a symbolical value of humanity.
I think the hon. Member for Keighley rather overstated his case. I am not sure that there is complete archaeological proof that all the places in and around Jerusalem, to which he referred and


which have become venerated by tradition, can with certainty be identified with the historic events with which they have become associated. Most of what we regard as the Holy Places, and particularly the Holy Sepulchre, which are sacred to Christians, Jews and Moslems alike, are within the Old City. I think it would be going too far at this date to ask the Government to press for an extended area around Jerusalem, and including Bethlehem and Nazareth, to become a reserve under international administration, but I do feel that it is very desirable, both on general international grounds and in deference to the religious convictions so widely held, that there should be a peaceful international administration in Jerusalem. I think it is for His Majesty's Government and the American Government to examine most sympathetically how far it is administratively possible to have an international régime in the Old City.
It seems to me that this is the crux of the matter, and it is here that the case can be put without any opposition on religious grounds. It seems to me from this point of view irrelevant at the present time to be biased by the consideration that the Arabs are in occupation of the Old City, and would therefore be called upon to make a sacrifice, whereas the Jews are in occupation of the New City. What I think is the concern which hon. Members on all sides are seeking to express is that there should be some international régime in the Old City to ensure the safety of these Holy Places which have been hallowed through the centuries, and to ensure that there will be proper machinery for their protection and free access to them as of right. It would be an advantage, on broad international grounds, that there should be an international organisation of that kind in Jerusalem in which one might hope that Jew and Arab alike would participate.
Now that the unhappy differences between Jews and Arabs look like receding, it is the hope of us all that they will be able to work together, as indeed they must if harmony, peace and prosperity are to be preserved in the Middle East. It would be of assistance in that area if some international organisation could be established in the Old City of Jerusalem itself, and I hope that the Under-Secretary, when he replies, will tell us that, as far as His Majesty's Govern-

ment are concerned, they will press that point of view, and not allow any considerations of mere administrative difficulty to deter them from lending support to a scheme which, I am sure, would be generally welcomed throughout the country.

2.44 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I cannot help wishing that this matter had been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) rather than by the hon. Gentleman opposite, because I think the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) made a dangerous and mischievous speech, whereas my hon. Friend made a thoroughly helpful and constructive one. The salient fact, of course, is that we are dealing in this Debate with a very small part of the earth's surface, but a part which is holy ground to nearly the whole of the human race, and it would be quite fantastic to endeavour to deal with the question on purely military, strategic, administrative or diplomatic grounds. There is far more than that involved.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Mr. Ivor Thomas rose—

Mr. Silverman: I would rather not give way.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I have been waiting for the hon. Gentleman to justify the assertion which he has made, and I should be glad if he will do so. He said that I had made a dangerous and mischievous speech. Will he please justify that statement?

Mr. Silverman: I think the hon. Gentleman did make a very dangerous and very mischievous speech. I am not proposing to argue that at all, and I think I would take too long if I did, and that I myself would be making a dangerous and mischievous speech, which I have no intention of doing.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: There is no foundation for the statement.

Mr. Silverman: I think there is. The hon. Gentleman imported into his speech an element of controversy which was better left out.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Say where.

Mr. Silverman: I am going to leave it at that.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: It is a matter of opinion.

Mr. Silverman: Of course, it is a matter of opinion. I rose to express mine.
The next thing I would like to say is that the whole matter shows how tragic it was that the United Nations, including the Government of this country, could not have been more positive and constructive in adopting the decision of the General Assembly in 1947. I am talking about the whole question, and not merely this particular aspect of it. If that had been done, and if the attempt of a number of Arab countries to upset the settlement by force could have been prevented—I am not arguing whether it could have been or not—then, of course, this question would never have needed to be discussed today, because the whole of Jerusalem would have been under an international regime with everybody's consent, as the General Assembly of the United Nations recommended. It is no fault either of the Jews in Palestine or the Arabs in Palestine that that decision was not implemented, though I have always thought that the chief blame rested upon His Majesty's Government; but I do not wish to argue that matter now.
One must remember all the new facts. This modern part of Jerusalem, within the area as set down in the Resolution of the General Assembly, other than the Old City, is a modern city containing not Jews alone, but very nearly only Jews, who have cultivated, built upon and developed it and whose home it has been for many years. There are more than 100,000 of them. They were prepared at the beginning, and so was the whole State of Israel, as it is now, to submit their security to international control.
What happened? For three months, these people were continually shelled and bombarded day and night. Their food supplies were cut off, their water supplies were cut off, and only a miracle of scientific devotion prevented the whole 100,000 being wiped out by the ravages of typhus. That went on without any intervention from the hon. Gentleman opposite, and without any intervention from anybody. They were left to fend for themselves, and the little State had to undertake the task of relieving them. The defence and relief of Jerusalem is one of the minor epics of modern times. In the end it was relieved. Water was taken to it another way; another road was built; food was taken in. But it

took three months of bombardment, starvation and disease. The place was on the verge of extinction; it was saved just in time, and only just in time. It is absolutely inconceivable that the State of Israel should now hand over 100,000 of its citizens in those circumstances to the kind of regime which we failed to implement when they accepted it. That is the salient fact of the situation.
It is no good trying to deal with these matters as though practical politics do not matter. If His Majesty's Government, the United States, or anybody else in the wide world wish to detach modern Jerusalem from the State of Irael and hand it over to anybody—international administration or anything else—they would have to do it by force. It could not be done in any other way. I hesitate to believe that anybody in this House is prepared to recommend such a step, or that it is, in fact, practical politics at all.
The hon. Gentleman admitted very fairly that there is no reason to believe that the Holy Places are in any danger. They are certainly not in any danger from the State of Israel because they are outside its frontiers. I do not think they are in any danger either from the Arab Legion or from the Forces of Transjordania who are, in fact, in occupation. I really could not follow what the hon. Gentleman meant when he said that, even if the Jews and Arabs on the spot reached agreement, the rest of the world ought not to accept that agreement, but ought to start a new war in order to alter it.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: I never said "a new war."

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman said we ought not to accept it.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Yes.

Mr. Silverman: But if one does not accept it, then, presumably, one seeks to alter it, and he who wills the end wills the means. If the hon. Gentleman does not will the means, then the end does not matter. What I am saying is that there would have been ample justification for saying that we should not accept an agreement on the spot if there were danger to the real and deep interests involved such as those which he regards as paramount in this matter. But the


hon. Gentleman expressly said that there would be no such danger, and, in the absence of any such danger, it is inconceivable why anyone should suppose that an agreement reached on the spot between Arabs and Jews should not be accepted by the whole world. If, on the other hand, the Transjordan Government could be persuaded to accept an international régime for the Old City, that, I think, would be an admirably constructive solution, but I would certainly not be in favour of using any degree of force to compel them to do so.

2.54 p.m.

Mr. A. R. W. Low: I am very sorry that immediately after this short Debate began, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) should have tried to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) who, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, asked your permission to raise this subject this afternoon. It seemed to me that there was nothing mischievous or unnecessarily controversial in my hon. Friend's speech. I thought he set out the facts in an excellent way, and though, of course, we in this House are entitled to differ in our opinions, I really cannot understand why the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne should have been so bitter in his speech, and in his interruptions and attempted interruptions while my hon. Friend was addressing the House. I am certainly very grateful to my hon. Friend for having obtained your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise this important subject. I can think of few more suitable subjects for discussion in this House on the day before Good Friday, and I hope that while I am speaking for a short while and when I say things with which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne or any other hon. Member does not agree, they will not attack me and accuse me, as they accused my hon. Friend, of being mischievous or controversial.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was entitled to say what he said.

Mr. Low: We are all entitled to say what we feel about this most important matter. I have not attacked the hon. Gentleman for what he has said; I would argue with him, but I would not accuse

him of being mischievous because of what he said.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne would probably agree with his hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) in the line she adopted. He did not go quite so far as she went, but I think that, in the end, he would agree with her. He appeared to agree with his hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher). I take the other view; I think that there should be an international authority over Jerusalem in its grand entirety, including Bethlehem; over the area that was set out in the report of the Special Committee of the United Nations, and which was accepted in the United Nations Resolution in November, 1947. It is that area over which I think there should be an international authority, and I will say why.
It appears that all those who have studied this matter most closely since 1936, in every report that has been issued whether by Royal Commissions or by High Commissioners belonging to this country, or by United Nations commissions, have taken the view that the proper area is the larger area. It is quite wrong to say that the Holy Places of Christianity are all included in the Old City. Anybody who knows Jerusalem will know that it is wrong to say that. I include not only the Garden of Gethsemane, the Mount of Olives and Bethlehem itself, but also Ein Karim which has a place in the history of Christianity.
I would also argue that it would be quite impracticable to confine an international authority to the Old City itself. But I am not going to argue the details of the case; I am going to point out to the House that those who have had the chance to study this problem most closely, those impartial men entrusted with the administration of Palestine on behalf of this country and of reporting on Royal Commissions, and also the men sent out by the United Nations, have all come to the same conclusion. I understand that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne agrees that the leaders of Israel accepted the United Nations' Resolution in November, 1947. But he argues that something has happened since that date, to make what was right then wrong now. I cannot understand how anything that has happened since then can upset


the inherent rightness of the conclusions then reached by all who had studied the matter up to that date.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think the hon. Gentleman is confusing the use of the words "right" and "wrong." I do not think their acceptance of it was based on a conception that it was right; I think that in the circumstances which then existed as part of a general settlement, they regarded it as a reasonable concession to make, whereas, in the light of what has happened since, they would now regard it as an unreasonable concession.

Mr. Low: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is putting forward his own views, and, as I apprehend, the views of the leaders of Israel, but I do not accept them. Moreover, I go so far as to say that the leaders of Israel were not the only parties to the acceptance of the United Nations Resolution. Indeed, this country was a very important party once that Resolution had been passed. It always seemed to me that once that Resolution was passed and agreed by the United Nations, we in this House and the Government should have accepted it, and we did indeed. [Interruption.] Indeed, we did. I am on record as having said so in this House. I am talking about myself. I am not talking about the speeches of the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which are sometimes difficult to understand, and of his right hon. Friend. It is quite clear that that was part of the whole settlement.
I cannot quote the words, but I think it was always explained to the House by the Foreign Secretary that when we were going to hand over this Mandate, one of the basic conditions of that surrender was that we would arrange some form of international authority for Jerusalem itself. Certainly once the Resolution had been accepted by the United Nations the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friends the Members for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) and Saffron Walden (Mr. R. A. Butler) are on record as having accepted and stressed the importance of that part of the United Nations Resolution which dealt with the international authority for Jerusalem. That being so, I must say again that I

do not see how anything that has happened since, whether it be the epic about which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has spoken, or any of the other tragic events, can affect the rightness of the decision taken by the United Nations and previous Commissions for the future of Jerusalem. It seems to me that what was right then, must be right now.
I think this is the right time of year to express the hope that the nations of the world, the United Nations, are great enough to live up to their duty to protect the shrines of world religion. Great causes have been fought out in Palestine with arms and in debates and discussions about its future, but I believe the greatest cause is the protection of the centres of the great world religion. The bickerings and disputes between the nations of the Levant seem to me to have nothing on earth to do with the problem of Jerusalem itself. It is no good laughing. The hon. Member for Preston (Dr. Segal) may not agree with me—

Dr. Segal: On what ground does the hon. Member accuse me of laughing at what he was saying? On the contrary, I was laughing at something which was mentioned to me by another hon. Member. I was not in the least listening to what the hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) was saying.

Mr. Low: I was supposing that the hon. Gentleman was doing me the courtesy of listening to me, as I was talking about something in which he should be interested. I apologise for having flattered him.
I hope that the Government will take a lead in this matter in the United Nations. I noticed in this morning's paper that the future of Jerusalem was, in fact, discussed by the United Nations General Assembly yesterday, and there is a short report of the speech of the Lebanese delegate, in which he reminded the delegates to the United Nations Assembly that no international authority had yet been set up. I agreed with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne when he said that if that authority had been set up, much misery would have been prevented, much doubt would have been prevented and, indeed, this Debate this afternoon would have been unnecessary.
Perhaps I might finish with two quotations. First I would like to remind the House of what the Archbishop of Canterbury said in a letter which he wrote to "The Times" in November last year. He was dealing with the argument that only the old city of Jerusalem need be put under this international authority. He said:
It is necessary to re-assert in the plainest terms that Jerusalem, new and old—for the two cannot be separated—with the Holy Places, must remain under international control.
Finally may I read the opening words of a letter written by Sir Harold MacMichael to "The Times" on 14th February. I read these words because they sum up what I feel about this matter so very deeply. He said:
Many values have changed in this modern world, but can it be that the conscience of mankind is now able, with only a passing qualm, to regard the fate of Jerusalem as a matter for bargaining or fighting between the bickering races of the Levant?

3.6 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I apologise, first of all, for intervening in this Debate, particularly as I was unavoidably detained and was unable to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) who raised this subject in which we all have a great interest. I happen to have been in Jerusalem and Nazareth somewhat more recently than some hon. Members.
I do not think there will be any disagreement with the statement that we are all deeply concerned with the preservation of the Holy Places. What puzzles me is the belief that internationalisation is necessarily the best way of preserving the Holy Places. When I observed the situation in Danzig before the war, I would not have said that Danzig was one of the cities which was the most secure in the whole of Europe. When I look at Berlin and Vienna today, two internationalised cities, I would not say that they are examples of security. There seems to me to be a far too facile belief that in trying to get the maximum administrative co-operation between the Eastern and Western Powers in Jerusalem, the Christian values will thereby be preserved in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) asked us not to be put back by what he described as mere ad-

ministrative problems. The problem of international control of Jerusalem is not a mere administrative problem. It is the serious problem of whether or not there is the possibility of collaboration between East and West. I should not have thought that there is much evidence of that at present. I should have thought that an attempt to introduce it into a country where political issues are in greater conflict than anywhere else in the Middle East, would be the craziest way to obtain security in that area.
Respectfully I say to the House that in my view, the Jew and the Arab, with all their limitations, may be better able than the competing great Powers to look after the Holy Places. I saw something of the Jewish Military Government in Nazareth. I talked to the Catholic authorities there. They had nothing but praise for the respect shown to the Holy Places. I have never heard anybody say that the Arabs in the Old City had failed to preserve the Holy Places; the worst vandalism was committed by soldiers during the heat of the war. I see every reason why Jew and Arab should have a common interest in the Holy Places if for no other than the mercenary motive that the tourist traffic in Palestine will be the most important invisible import that they will have. It is overwhelmingly in their interest and in the interest of Jew and Arab to ensure free access to those Holy Places for pilgrims from all over the world.
The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) spoke of incorporating Bethlehem. Palestine is a very small country. I cannot believe that by taking out this section of Arab territory and putting it under international control, peace will be introduced into Palestine. I do not believe that many people would have proposed the internationalisation of Jerusalem if it had not been for the fact that 100,000 Jews were living in Jerusalem. Now, with the rectification of the frontiers, new Jerusalem is part of Israel, old Jerusalem is naturally part of Transjordan—an entirely new position.
I have never felt that there was much evidence that many of the Holy Places go back to much beyond the fourth century A.D. I think that we have to think of Palestine as a whole as being holy. What is unmistakably genuine are the


mountains, the lakes, the plains by the sea and the country as a whole on both sides of the Jordan. What we want to preserve for the pilgrims is Palestine East and West of the Jordan as a whole, as a country where they can go to the sea where the great religions were founded; not looking at the mere stones but to the countryside and the atmosphere. If the House is concerned in seeing that the pilgrims have access to Palestine, it should look towards the neutralisation of Israel and Transjordan and the breaking down of the divisions between them. If the solemn pledge of the great Powers were concentrated on guaranteeing their common frontier, that would produce a Transjordan and an Israel working together. It would be a more genuine service to Christian, Moslem and Jew if the great Powers worked together to take Israel and Transjordan out of strategy and make them a neutral area of the Middle East. That is the real aim of internationalisation, and not this crazy notion of setting up an international zone right in the middle of the area, thereby creating international friction in that country. I am baffled that people should suggest that that is the way to safeguard the Holy Places.

3.12 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): In the Debate we have had the advantage of the views of hon. Members of various religious convictions, all of whom, I think, have been united in a common concern for the safety of the Holy Places in Jerusalem. If I may say so without presumption, the tone of the Debate seems to me to have been appropriate both to the subject and to the season of the year in which we are called upon to hold it.
The Debate has also shown the extraordinary difficulty of the problem. I think that it is not enough—I know that my hon. Friend will forgive me for saying so—to dismiss the view that the whole city of Jerusalem should be internationalised as unduly controversial or mischievous. I think that we must face the fact that it is a sincerely held view which must be very carefully considered. May I begin by putting on record some of the background of the problem which we have to discuss?
It is familiar to the House that when the General Assembly of the United Nations met in the autumn of 1947, they had before them the recommendations of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. An important item in these recommendations was the proposal that an area comprising the City of Jerusalem and the surrounding villages should be internationalised. This proposal was approved by the United Nations in the November Resolution of 1947. It will be recalled that the United Nations' partition plan could not be implemented—as His Majesty's Government had from the beginning warned the United Nations—owing to the lack of an effective force for this purpose.
The late Count Bernadotte was appointed by the United Nations as a mediator, and, after he had secured a truce between the two parties, he made his report to the United Nations with recommendations for a settlement. In this he said that the State of Jerusalem, because of its religious and international significance and the complexity of interests involved, should be afforded special and separate treatment. He suggested that it should be placed under effective United Nations control with the maximum feasible local autonomy for its Arab and Jewish communities, with full safeguards for the protection of the Holy Places and sites and free access to them, and for religious freedom. He also recommended that the right of unimpeded access to Jerusalem by road, rail or air should be fully respected by all parties.
The General Assembly in the Autumn of 1948 considered this report and finally adopted a resolution introduced by His Majesty's Government, but considerably modified during the course of the Debate. This resolution instructed a Conciliation Commission, consisting of representatives of the United States, France and Turkey, to present to the next regular session of the Assembly detailed proposals for a permanent international régime for the Jerusalem area, which would provide for the maximum local autonomy for distinctive groups, consistent with the special international status of the Jerusalem area. The Commission were authorised to appoint a United Nations representative to co-operate with the local authorities with respect to the interim administration of the Jerusalem area. The resolution


also emphasised the importance of free access to Jerusalem.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Ivor Thomas) about the work of the Conciliation Commission on the problem of Jerusalem. Shortly after their appointment, the Conciliation Commission met in Switzerland and proceeded thereafter to establish their headquarters at Jerusalem in accordance with the instructions of the United Nations. They have since been active in pursuing discussions with both the Israeli and Arab Governments, but I think that it is true to say that most of the recent negotiations have been on the perhaps still more urgent subject of the Arab refugees in and around Palestine. I know, however, that they regard the problem of Jerusalem as of great importance, and I know that they have that in mind at the present time. I cannot give a list of the Christian leaders to whom the hon. Member referred. He wanted to know whether they had been interviewed by the Conciliation Commission. I have not that information, but I know that their interests have been well in the forefront of the minds of the Conciliation Commission, and we welcome the fact that the headquarters of the Commission are at Jerusalem. That is clear proof of the United Nations interest in the City, and also a stabilising factor.
It is also satisfactory to note that the situation has been quiet in Jerusalem now for some months. As some hon. Members said, it is going to be a sad Eastertide in the City. But at least, in sharp contrast to the constant guerilla warfare which went on for many months after the end of the Mandate, things are quiet and have been quiet there for many months now. The City is divided by a military line of demarcation between the Israeli and Transjordan Forces which forms part of the line of demarcation agreed upon in the general armistice agreement signed by Israel and Transjordan. The Israelis hold all the New City while Transjordan controls the Old City in which are situated the principal Holy Places.
As to the possibilities of internationalisation, I am sure that the United Nations express the will of the entire civilised world in insisting that the Holy Places should be protected and free access should be ensured to them for all religions, as

well as for all inhabitants of Palestine. Our view is that whatever solution is come to—internationalisation or not, or part internationalisation—we feel that there must be free access to the Holy Places for all religions.
The United Nations proposed that we should secure this by setting up an international régime, and that of course is what several Members have asked for today, but in talking about internationalisation it is necessary to consider carefully just what this involves. We are here up against the same problem as the United Nations were up against when they laid down the Partition Plan of 1947. The main difficulty is implementation. The plain fact remains that to impose an international régime in the considerable area foreseen by the United Nations would he a very formidable task. It would require a very large police force and administration.
We must therefore have some doubts, though His Majesty's Government were amongst the first to suggest that this was the ideal solution, as to how far the scheme of full internationalisation can in fact be worked. It is, of course, possible to imagine variants of such a scheme that might be more praticable, such as an increase in the automony of the local municipalities to a point where the international governor became a titular head concerned almost entirely with the protection of the Holy Places. I do not think it would be useful at this moment to consider all the possible variants on this theme, as there are many of them.
Another consideration, which I am sure the House will understand—I want to be careful not to say anything which may embarrass the work of the Conciliation Commission on the subject—is that Jerusalem is bound to be a vitally important part of any peace settlement, largely through the help of the Commission, and it cannot be treated entirely in isolation. A number of Members referred to the question of part internationalisation—that is to say, the internationalisation of the Old City. This, of course, is contrary to the 1947 recommendations of the United Nations, and it is not in line with the terms of reference given to the Conciliation Commission by the United Nations General


Assembly. It does raise, undoubtedly, a number of serious practical difficulties which cannot be ignored. It is a very small area, and to erect a special international regime for that area would involve considerable difficulties. The area depends on the larger part of the City—the New City—for essential supplies and for all forms of administration.
We must not forget that there is also an Arab point of view. We do not need much imagination to realise what the Arabs would feel about a solution of this kind, with the implication that the Arab part of the City somehow required United Nations administration and the other side did not. For these reasons, I cannot say what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mrs. Manning) wanted me to say, that the Government would support this scheme. I will say, however, that we are awaiting the result of the Conciliation Commission's report, and that I am not at this stage anxious to say anything which may embarrass them one way or the other. As I mentioned before, we were originally responsible for introducing the resolution which gave birth to the Commission. May I take this opportunity of stating that His Majesty's Government have confidence in the Commission and hope that they will find it possible to guide the two parties chiefly concerned—there are more parties concerned in the problem than two—to a reasonable settlement, and that the Commission will bear in mind the interest the civilised world has in the preservation of the Holy Places and free access to them?

Mr. Low: I know that the Under-Secretary was very careful in the words he used, and I do not want to exacerbate any feelings. He talked about the difficulties of implementing an international organisation if that were decided upon. Will he say whether he is absolutely convinced that that will lead to fighting, or does he not think that there is some hope? Surely he does not agree that that would necessarily result in fighting, and surely he is not going to have it said in this House that just one party, the people of Israel, can flout the will of the United Nations?

Mr. Mayhew: It was not my intention to suggest that at all, and I do not think there is anything I want to add to what I have said already.

3.27 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: Has the Under-Secretary considered at all how much the future of the Holy Places depend upon where the eventual capital of Israel is to be? It seems to me that so long as Israel has hopes of making Jerusalem its capital, we cannot hope for any willing acceptance by Israel of an international commission being in charge of Jerusalem and the Holy Places. I should have thought—and I said this when we were discussing the Palestine Bill—that the real solution lies in Israel being told quite firmly from the United Nations, as it ought to have been told by us before, that the capital of the Jewish part of Palestine should not be Jerusalem. So long as there is that possibility in the mind of Israel, there is not much likelihood of acceptance of the idea of an international commission to look after the Holy Places in Jerusalem.
I hoped that the Foreign Secretary would have by now made up his mind about it. This matter has been called to his attention before. I hoped that the Government would have had a policy on the matter and would have aired it in the United Nations. I am in sympathy with what has been said on the future of the Holy Places in this Debate, but, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has said, I do not completely divorce this matter from practical politics. I am sure the practical politics of the matter is that some people in Israel believe that they can have the capital in Jerusalem, and so long as there is that feeling there, we shall not get a willing acceptance of an international regime. I believe that we cannot divide the Old City from the New City. I believe that the Garden of Gethsemane and the Mount of Olives must go with it. We want peace in that area, and we shall not get it so long as Israel thinks it can establish its capital in Jerusalem one day.

SCHOOL MEALS SERVICE

3.29 p.m.

Mr. Frank McLeavy: Much has been said about finance and the large expenditure on the social services. I believe it may be profitable if we spend a short time in examining in more detail the operation and administration of the school meals service. I am sure the House will wish to congratulate the Minister of Education upon the drive which is being made to develop and extend this service. Those of us who have for many years been closely associated with this important social service are naturally pleased to see coming into full realisation a scheme which was agitated for by the educational pioneers. I, personally, have occasion to feel some measure of satisfaction, and indeed pride, because the local authority of the city of Bradford was the first in Britain to assume, in 1904, public responsibility for the feeding of necessitous children. This decision caused a nation-wide consciousness; public opinion was aroused; and it resulted in the passing, in 1906, of the first Act of Parliament dealing with this question, which extended the Bradford scheme to the whole of the country.
I cannot pass from this great landmark in the history of our educational progress without paying a tribute to the late Fred Jowett, who was the driving force behind the decision of the Bradford City Council. Jowett's whole life was spent in the service of humanity, and the poor and needy were his special care. For many years he represented my present division in this House, and became a Minister of the Crown in the first Labour Government. I am told by the older Members of the House that Jowett, by his sincerity and courage, earned the respect of all Members on all sides of the House.
The passing of the 1906 Act was the beginning of a continuous fight, first to enforce the application of the spirit of the Act, and secondly to widen the general scope of the service. There were still reactionary local authorities who did not miss any opportunity of extracting money from the parents of the unfortunate children, and who in fact fixed the income limit of the family so high that the vast majority of necessitous school children were debarred the benefits which were the real purpose of the Act. It took many years of public pressure to

bring about drastic changes in the administration of the Act. I think that the period of the last war marked a great step forward in the provision of school meals, because the necessities of war, coupled with the danger arising from enemy air-raid attacks, made it necessary for the Government, through the Ministry of Food, to make provision for communal feeding in areas affected by air-raid attack; cooking depots were established throughout the country, and in order to keep them ticking over in readiness for any emergency there were used to extend greatly the provision of school meals.
It may well be that this extension of school feeding not only made it possible for some of the mothers to go into a form of war work, but was a major factor in maintaining a very high standard of health amongst the school population. That war-time service provided the basis upon which we are planning the development of the service, and I am anxious—as I believe we all are—that all its good features should be retained. We welcome the assurance of the Minister that, with the full extension of school meals, it is the policy of the Government to make them free. The net cost of the school dinners service in 1947–48, after allowing for payments by parents and staff, was about £16 million. It is estimated by the Ministry that when provision is made available for four million children to have dinners without payment, the cost to the public funds will be of the order of £40 million a year. No one will begrudge this large expenditure of public money, which should reflect itself in a healthy and vigorous youth.
Parliament is entitled to be satisfied that such moneys are properly spent. It is necessary to see that not only the children get the best quality and service, but that the utmost economy is applied in administration. Indeed, it is upon the administrative side that real concern is felt. There was within my personal knowledge a serious waste of public moneys in the administration of type A canteens as against type E, due to matters of financial control coupled with the appointment and supervision of staffs. The Ministry have, of course, tightened up the financial controls by regulations, but I am not entirely satisfied that further improvements cannot be made.
I should like to give a brief picture of the position of type A canteens. They are those that have their own cooking and service facilities. Type B canteens are those with only serving facilities, meals being drawn from central kitchens or cooking depots in insulated containers. Type A come under the management of the headmaster and governing body. The purchasing of food and staffing, by their very nature and set-up, are removed from the effective control of the education authority. For instance, food is bought in the main in the retail market rather than in the wholesale market, and in staffing very little regard is paid to training or experience. Type E canteens, on the other hand are generally under the management of first-class, highly-trained catering officers and control is by a specially appointed committee, while financial control is under the watchful eye of the finance officer.
The service of the cooking depots or central kitchens represents a very big and improved technical organisation. It is undoubtedly a considerable financial saving by providing the children with a much better balanced meal than is available in the type A canteen. Bulk purchase of food leads to a considerable saving in the cost, and ensures that purchases can be made direct from the manufacturer or wholesaler. The wholesale prices of foodstuffs are controlled by the Ministry of Food just as are the retail prices.
This control applies not only to rationed items but to a greater number of other foodstuffs. Most of the maximum prices fixed by the Ministry of Food become, as we all know well, the fixed prices. We shall find, however, that under the system of bulk purchase it has been possible to purchase supplies never above wholesale prices and often at less. The prices were adjusted from the level at which a standard bulk must be broken and often on account of the size of the order.
I have before me comparisons of the cost between wholesale and retail prices for the school meals services. They were prepared by a county catering officer. They show a saving of something like £20,000 per annum, upon a system of bulk purchase. This saving is on the basis of 126,000 meals weekly. It is estimated that if bulk purchase had been

applied to the type A canteens, in those canteens also the saving per annum would have been in the region of £40,000. The following items of savings are of interest: meat, £6,000; potatoes, £5,460; flour, £1,512; margarine, £1,202; peas, £1,066; jam, £976.
It is clear to anyone who examines these figures that if bulk purchase were applied by the 146 local education authorities in the country it would result in a saving to the Ministry of Education of many millions of £s annually. Indeed, if we take the official figure of four million meals daily, which appears to be the aim of the Ministry, I estimate that the saving by bulk purchase in respect of both rationed and unrationed foods would be in the region of £4¾ million for a school year.

Mr. H. Hynd: Would my hon. Friend agree that the saving might be even greater, if there could be some link between the school meals service and the civic restaurants service?

Mr. McLeavy: If my hon. Friend will allow me to make my case, he will find that I am coming to the particular point that he has in mind. If we added to that saving, the economies which would result from maintaining a centralised system of cooking, and further economies in staffing, equipment and buildings, we might well effect a total annual saving in the nature of £8 million a year. I regard that figure as a very conservative estimate indeed.
I suggest to the House and to the Minister that we cannot afford the extravagant luxury of retail purchase in connection with this great undertaking. It is clear to my mind that the provision of school meals is the job of a highly specialised officer, yet it appears that some education authorities are breaking this well-tried and successful organisation and replacing it with a costly and cumbersome system of multiple control, by introducing an administrative officer holding responsibility for other matters and an organiser who is also responsible for other matters. Further control is exercised by divisional executive school governors and managers. This development has even gone to the extent that cooks in charge are to be given additional responsibility of a nature for which they


are not generally competent. I believe this to be a retrograde step, likely to result in inferior meals for the children, mess and muddle in administration, and as certain to increase costs considerably without the slightest justification.
Much could be said on the respective merits of type A and type B canteens. I personally believe that in the case of an isolated school, tucked away in the country, the type A canteen may be preferable, but there is a strong case, both on financial and administrative grounds, for the retention of the cooking depots or central kitchens to serve the popullated areas. Indeed, nothing could be more extravagant than to provide each school with expensive cooking kitchens, equipment and staff, particularly when building material and labour is in short supply and urgently needed to provide housing accommodation for our people. Whatever may be the ultimate policy of the Minister upon this matter, I most strongly urge a policy of bulk purchase and central management and control, coupled with an effective financial control by both the financial officer of the local authority and the district auditor of the Ministry of Health.
The Manchester inquiry into supplies and prices of meat for school meals service, reported in the "Manchester Guardian" on 17th August, 1948, is an indication of the need for continuous watchfulness upon both supplies and quality and cost. Briefly, the Manchester City Council were concerned with allegations of over-charging for meat varying from 4d. to 8d. a lb. It is of particular interest to note, and I commend this to the Minister, that the special sub-committee appointed by the Manchester City Council to make the inquiry recorded its unanimous opinion that the day-to-day operations of the service should be vested in an experienced catering manager.
The provision of meals by local authorities is growing not only in respect of school meals but in many other ways, such as the provision of meals and refreshments in civic restaurants, the police force, members of the council and staff, and the new Housing Bill also makes provision for the supply of meals and refreshments on council estates. It was never the intention of Parliament in making such general provisions that each department

of a corporation should set up a special catering organisation with its duplication of administrative costs. Indeed, this growth of municipal catering reveals the clear need for the co-ordination of the services under one administrative head. The allocation of cost between departments presents no difficulties, a fact which is known by anyone who has been associated with local government. Nothing is more absurd that the present state of affairs.
The London County Council have coordinated these catering services under a chief officer of the restaurants and catering department. In regard to school meals this officer is, very properly, answerable to the education committee. The catering officer's department prepares, cooks and serves the school meals; the staff of the education department are responsible for supervising the children during the meals. All the catering for all departments of the county council is under the control of the specialist catering department, and this conforms with the principle of centralised specialist service adopted by the county council generally. Bulk purchase of food is regarded by the county council as a most important item of saving. My case is that the wise policy of centralisation and bulk purchase applied by the London County Council should be enforced by the Government. After all, the Government will eventually take full financial responsibility for this service.

Mr. Albert Evans: Will my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) distinguish between the bulk purchase of foodstuffs and bulk cooking, which is another matter, and one of which he may not approve? Although the London County Council carries bulk purchase very far, it does not carry bulk cooking to such an extent, because that results in meals which are not fresh.

Mr. McLeavy: I not want to detain the House too long, because I want to give other hon. Members an opportunity to express an opinion and the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity to reply. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Islington (Mr. A. Evans) will not drag me into a long discussion upon a point which I should be very happy to pursue if there were sufficient time.
The financial difficulties confronting the nation, demand the utmost economy in the management of such social services. This is by no means a new policy, nor is it confined to Labour-dominated councils. In Cheshire we have a county council upon which Labour is not strongly represented. During the war I was associated with the building up of a very large centralised meals service which provided meals for not only schools but other departments, supplemented, of course, by the type A canteen and, quite recently, about five central kitchens. This service was a part of the emergency feeding arrangements to which I have referred, and it did great work in providing meals for areas affected by air attacks.
We appointed a first-class catering officer whose duties were, in the main, similar to those of London, and we desired to continue this organisation. At least so far as bulk purchase was concerned, I desired to bring in both the cooking kitchens and the type A canteens, but the Ministry of Education stepped in and insisted upon the breaking up of our Organisation. Parliament is entitled to an explanation of why one policy is right in London and wrong in other parts. We ought to be told what prompted the Minister to take this regrettable step, and we are entitled to a statement upon future policy. I do not press for a statement of policy now if we can be given an assurance that the position will be re-examined in the light of this Debate.
I trust that the Ministry of Education will consult with the Minister of Health with a view to requesting county borough councils and county councils to set up a co-ordinated service. I believe this is the best approach to the problem. Meanwhile, I venture to suggest to the Minister, steps which I am convinced are necessary for the building of an efficient school meals service. I will confine myself to what I regard to be three fundamental changes required in the policy of the Ministry.
First, the Minister should appoint a first-class catering officer, with long experience in the trade, to take charge at the Ministry of the school meals service. Second, each local education authority should appoint a catering officer, with the rank of a senior official, with responsibilities for the complete organisation of

school feeding, including bulk purchase of food, equipment, etc., and for the engagement of suitable staff, under the control of a council committee. Third, such financial regulations as may be laid down by the Ministry should be under the control of the financial officer to the authority and the district auditor for the Ministry of Health.
I know that on the purely educational side the Minister has a very capable and well-trained staff, but school feeding is a professional job and requires a type of direction which can come only from a qualified man drawn from the catering trade. I do not regard diplomas in domestic science or advanced cookery obtained at universities, or even degrees, in themselves as the type of qualifications required for the job to which I have referred. If we fail to get the right direction from the top, the whole of the scheme will be endangered. It is singularly unfortunate that the Minister's staff does not include anyone with what might be described as outstanding experience in the catering world. This is a disadvantage which should be removed without delay.
The existing regulations, made in 1945, for which the present Minister was not responsible, are remarkable for their brevity and indecision. They represent an almost complete abdication of Ministerial responsibility for the proper disbursement of public money, giving to local authorities what appears to be an open cheque for the provision of meals. The regulations say that:
The Authority shall secure that due economy is observed in the operation of that service.
No attempt is made, however, to give general guidance upon such things as bulk purchase, central management and control, the limitation of unneccessary staffing, etc., all of which can represent a considerable saving to the national Exchequer. I am anxious that this great service shall succeed. Success depends upon the right approach. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will give serious consideration to the points I have made.

4.0 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Morley: The time at our disposal is very brief and I propose to content myself with asking the Minister three questions, to


which I hope he will be able to give satisfactory answers. At present about 52 per cent. of our children are taking a midday meal at school and nearly 100 per cent. are having free milk at school. No doubt these services have been major factors in making our children the bonniest and healthiest children in the world. I understand that it is proposed in the future to make all school meals free and then we may expect that from 80 to 90 per cent. of the children will partake of midday meals at school.
At present many hundreds of thousands of children are taking midday meals in classrooms and the odour of the meal clings to the classroom during the afternoon session. The school meal, in practice, is supposed to have the benefit that it gives to the teacher an opportunity to give social training to those partaking of the meal, but that is quite impossible in an over-crowded classroom. The first essential is that every school should have a dining hut. When does the Parliamentary Secretary think that every school in the country will be provided with a dining hut? For the past year or two there has been a shortage of crockery and cutlery in schools. I believe that that shortage is being made good, but I should like an assurance that in the very near future, there will be ample provision of crockery and cutlery and that there will be enough when, in a year or two perhaps, 90 per cent. of the children will be taking the meals.
This provision of school meals has thrown a heavy burden on teachers, particularly in infant schools. There are still a number of local education authorities which are not implementing fully Circular 97. When the meals become free and 90 per cent. of the children are taking them, a much heavier burden will be thrown on the teachers, a burden so great that unless they get some relief it will interfere with the execution of their proper duties of teaching. I would like an assurance that my hon. Friend will bring pressure to bear on all local education authorities fully to implement Circular 97 in order to see that teachers have sufficient help in the supervision of scholars' meals, so as to prevent an intolerable burden of supervision, making the proper fulfilment of their functions as teachers impossible.

4.3 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mr. Hardman): I have been asked a great many questions in this brief Debate, in fact there were 10 main questions which I am expected to answer in a reply which, in the nature of things, cannot take more than about 12 minutes.
First, I want to disillusion the House if disillusionment is required, in regard to the experience of the technical staff who deal with the schools meals service. My hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford (Mr. McLeavy) said that he had not a great deal of faith in degrees and diplomas, and very often I am of the same turn of mind. Looking at the list of the technical staff, we find one who has qualified by experience as a hospital dietitian, another in a hospital canteen, another in a university hall of residence, another who was a caterer for the National Fire Service during the war, one who was a housekeeper and caterer for the Manchester and District Bank headquarters, another the manager of an American Red Cross Club, an assistant steward of the University of Birmingham, another a hospital caterer, one who was for two years an hotel manager and so on. Going through the list we can see that these people have something much more by way of qualifications than diplomas and degrees. However, financial and administrative considerations are not the only criteria in this extremely important service. There is the happiness of the school children and the dignity and place of the school meal in the day-to-day curriculum.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford covered a very wide range. He brought into the picture conditions in Bradford and said quite properly that we owed much to the work of the late Fred Jowett. One would like here to pay a tribute to the City of Bradford, in that early this century it had in it such fine educational pioneers. That large central kitchen in Green Lane, which was more or less a soup kitchen, became the centre of the movement which even now is growing rapidly into the great free school meals service. My Department make no apology for having persuaded Bradford, not only to reconstruct this old


kitchen, but to develop a system of self-contained canteens, that is to say, canteens with their own kitchens.
No one would suggest that carried meals are as good as meals cooked on the spot. I am quite convinced of that from my experience in going round to see the school meals service functioning both in rural areas and large urban areas. Further, I assert that the carried meals service is more costly than cooking on the premises. The economies in the large kitchen do not offset the cost of having to transport the meals, and to staff the dining rooms separately. As regards food costs, Bradford at first ran their costs up too much, so our experts got together with theirs. As a result they are now buying by large-scale tenders and contracts, and the result has been very good meals at an economical cost, below that of the particular county to which my hon. Friend referred—Cheshire. Turning to overheads, Bradford's all in cost, exclusive of food, is 5.9d. for wages, fuel, administration, whereas Cheshire's cooking depots under the catering manager cost 6.1d. for wages alone.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford referred to war-time development. We are, of course, proud that from an approximate figure of 300,000 school meals served daily in 1939, we have now approached 2¾ million. But the supply of meals from cooking depots divorced from the management of the school dining halls, by the local education authority, was never a satisfactory arrangement. Experience has led local education authorities everywhere to have catering and dining under unified control in all except three areas—London, Bournemouth and Wolverhampton. Elsewhere the local education authorities insist on having cooking and dining under their own sole direct control. We think that that is an extremely good thing. At one time a proportion of the meals—about 10 per cent.—were purchased from British Restaurants. I have no hesitation in saying that that also proved to be a most unsatisfactory arrangement. Now that is done on a very small scale—less than 2 per cent. Even in London only one-eighth of the meals are obtained in this way, and this figure is steadily being reduced.
I turn to my hon. Friend's third point—and here come into the picture two of

the questions which were asked by my hon. Friend the senior Member for Southampton (Mr. Morley)—concerning the present cost of the meals service and the estimated cost of a free meals service. The figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for East Bradford were those for 1947–48. I happen to have later figures—our estimate for 1948–49. For 2¾ million school meals, the figure for 1948–49 is £21 million plus £9 million collected from the parents, an estimated total figure of £30 million. If we are to have free meals, the cost for four million children would be about £40 million which, as my hon. Friend said, was the figure given by my right hon. Friend in reply to his Question of 28th February of this year.
My hon. Friend the senior Member for Southampton quite rightly insists upon the best available material. We all sympathise with the need for having not only suitable cutlery and containers of all kinds; we all agree that as soon as possible, every school must have its own separate dining room. It is perfectly true that on going into schoolrooms used for midday meals one has that sense of heaviness. There is the smell of the meal which has been taken, and I cannot believe that those conditions are the best for the afternoon work which has to be done in the school. But I am afraid it is impossible for the Ministry to give any date when that need for separate dining-rooms will be satisfied; it depends so much upon the supply of materials and the labour available. The figures which I gave to the hon. Member for East Bradford in regard to estimated costs of free meals, is a rough proportional estimate, based on current costs and allowing for some decline in the cost per meal as the numbers in each canteen rise; that is to say, we think that, as the need for the service rises, so the overheads should go down a little.
It is also true to say, in answer to the point raised by my hon. Friend, that the cost is moderate, and increases in the cost per meal are fully explained. If we exclude the amortisation of premises and equipment, the cost per meal, which includes food and overheads, in 1947–48 was 11.91d.; in 1948–49 12.73d.; and in 1949–50 our estimate is 13.08d. If that is divided into categories we find that the increase for food is.23d.; for overheads.94d., an increase for those three years totalling 1.17d. We have tried


with food purchase and with regard to administration to streamline the school meals service as much as possible, for obviously the duty of the Department, in co-operation with the local education authorities, is to make the service as efficient as possible and to reduce costs wherever possible.
Leaving out of account altogether the effect of the Budget, to which I shall refer in a moment, in this period of three financial years, the figures for which I have just given, the increase in food cost is under ¼d. per meal. That increase is due partly to a slight increase in prices, but mainly it is due to a deliberate and welcome improvement in quality in the school meals service in so many areas of the country; and indeed in many areas that improvement was needed. I would suggest that this is a very moderate cost and reflects the fact that in bulk contracts local education authorities are obtaining wholesale discounts and saving about 1d. per meal—more in urban areas, but naturally rather less in rural areas with small canteens.
Having said that we have, in the three financial years to which I have referred, tried to streamline the service with regard to the food and the efficiency of administration, I must follow that up and say that some adjustment is now necessary, because of the effect of the Budget proposals in relation to increased food costs. The total cost we estimate on the food bill for the school meals service due to the Budget increases will be about one and a half million. That means that the increased cost will be another ½d. a meal; that is to say, another ½d. on the 13.08 figure which I have given as our estimate so that in taking account of the actual figures I have given for two financial years, and the estimated figure for the year 1949–50, we still have to make an adjustment in the years that lie ahead, beginning in the year 1949–50 because of the effect of the increases on food brought about by the Budget proposals.

Mr. Morley: Does that increase the price to the children?

Mr. Hardman: No, Sir. In this same period the increase of overhead costs is just under 1d. Most of this is entirely accounted for by a national wages award of last summer, and the cost of National Insurance. On the one hand, the in-

crease for food was ¼d. which now is to be adjusted, and on the other hand, when we come to administration costs, the increase will be 1d. That, of course, is not affected by the Budget proposals.
My hon. Friend referred to what he called type A self-contained canteens and type B dining canteens supplied with meals from the central kitchens. At the Ministry we do not use these terms. That is why I describe the type A and type B canteens. I reiterate that we think that cooking on the spot is much better than getting food in containers from a central kitchen or depot. However clean those containers may be, there is no doubt that the taste of the food, though perhaps not the quality, deteriorates. Cooking on the spot is the ideal. I suggest that it admits of no argument at all. I should say that we are all agreed about that.
Again, there is another reason why cooking on the spot is good from the administrative point of view—it is cheaper. With a system of bulk contracting for food there is little difference between the cost per meal in large central kitchens and in canteen kitchens. The better result is well worth the slight extra cost which averages less than ¼d. per meal. We save on that, because of the overhead and administrative costs. Savings at the central kitchen do not offset the cost of having a separate staff for the dining-room. In addition, central kitchens cause transport costs of ½d. to 1d. per meal or more. That is a surprising figure. Wages costs for central kitchens plus dining-rooms are about ¼d. per meal more than for self-contained canteens for units of all sizes.
In conclusion, I wish to say that we are certain that there is a financial saving by bulk purchase. There is no comparison-between the two examples given by my hon. Friend of London and Cheshire. London is exercising civic restaurant powers. Cheshire has no such powers, except by delegation at the request of a minor authority. What the Cheshire local education authority have done is to establish completely unified control over this very large catering service—an obvious improvement on every ground, financial and others. London's administration costs are just about twice the general average for the country. At the Ministry we are convinced that we have found the solution in the matter of bulk purchase. We believe that, with the


advance of the school meals service, the experience we have had will result in considerable improvement as we go towards our goal of an entirely free meals service.

COLONIES (HOUSING)

4.19 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Kinghorn: It is probably fitting that for the last 40 minutes of our activities here before the Recess we should again discuss a Colonial matter. I would say offhand that since we had our last Recess, among the subjects we have discussed nothing has been more popular, either for Debate or for Question and answer, than the number of Colonial topics which have been raised from bah sides of the House. As I look back I find that since Christmas we have discussed soil erosion; timber supplies, a few nights ago; meat supplies, this week; and transport, in addition to one or two territories which have been discussed separately, such as Gambia and North Borneo. We do not expect to get the complete answers in a few moments to these great problems, but at least we are doing our duty to our people here at home and our relatives abroad, by ensuring that this great Mother of Parliaments should continually be discussing subjects of such importance to many millions of people with whom we are so closely related.
I bring forward today the question of housing in the Colonial territories, and, in housing, I hope to include not just domestic housing but farm buildings and all that kind of thing, which rather fits in with the discussion we had the day before yesterday on meat supplies. It seems to me that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, in replying to the Debate two nights ago on the subject of meat supplies from the Colonial territories, made an epoch-making announcement, and I would like to quote from it, because, as far as I know, the Press did not realise what he said. Perhaps it was late at night and not enough notice was taken of it against other activities. My hon. Friend said:
With regard to cattle, I am glad to say that the Ministry of Agriculture are now prepared to take carcass beef from certain areas in Africa under certain circumstances. That is a big step forward. Previously that

has been one of the great difficulties about exporting carcass beef from Africa. The conditions are that the animals have been bred and kept in clean areas, and have not been immunised, that the animals stay three weeks in quarantine before slaughter, and that slaughter takes place in clear areas. This opens up considerable possibilities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th April, 1949; Vol. 463, c. 2812.]
and so on. That is an epoch-making announcement, and fits in with this question of using to the full all our ability, our building materials and technique, together with the great and ripe experience which we have in this country, to help the development of these areas which can help themselves, and, in doing so, also help us in food supplies, industrial development and so on.
On all sides of the House, we are united in one resolve that we want to develop all these territories with all our skill as quickly as possible, using all the skill of both the indigenous peoples and ourselves. In looking at these problems, we have come to the conclusion that we should accept certain general lines. First of all, in territories like Africa and other parts of the Colonial Empire, the first prerequisite is a system of good harbours. After that, means of communication must be opened up in the shape of better roads or new roads, and railway communications must be improved and must be provided where none exist at the moment. These should be provided from the industrial resources of this country, and, perhaps, of other countries in the Commonwealth. That is the basis for the great plans which we are united in pushing forward in this generation.
When we come to view progress on these lines, we find that we can reach a certain stage and then progress is stopped because the great human factor comes in. People must have somewhere to live in order to carry on their jobs in all these great projects. Let us take the case of some of the railway developments in the Eastern and Central territories in Africa. We must lengthen our lines of communication there, and build new railways to link up the different existing systems, and so on. That means more personnel from this country to take on these jobs, and, before they can do their jobs properly, they must have houses. Certain Colonial Governments have had great difficulty since the war in making grants to skilled workmen from this country, such as engine drivers and platelayers, because


there was no living accommodation for them when they got there. Once we get adult people, married people with children, going out to these territories, it is obvious that the housing problem there is as important as it is in this country. So progress is bound to be limited unless we are able to provide adequate housing where these developments are being undertaken. It is the same problem throughout our territories, even as it is in this country and in our own constituencies.
Probably, we all have to tread very carefully in apportioning available materials and supplies, and so on, in satisfying all these needs at once, but I know that some progress has been made in housing our people under the groundnut scheme. I have been in touch with the Overseas Food Corporation, and they are making some headway. Of Southern Rhodesia, which does not come under the authority of my right hon. Friend, but is only linked to his territories, the interim development report published on 23rd March this year says:
Southern Rhodesia needs 6,000 new houses to be built in this and the immediately succeeding years. It is doubtful whether a rate of more than 2,750 will actually be achieved, adding 3,250 non-existent houses annually to the already disturbingly large back-log. Housing generally in the Colony is far from satisfactory. It is recognised that the rate of immigration, co-related as it must be with the ability to house newcomers, is at present seriously restricted by housing shortages, and this is most undesirable.
The shortage of houses in Southern Rhodesia is linked up with our work which must be undertaken in Northern Rhodesia, where we get such massive production of copper ore, and so on, which is helping our economic situation.
The same is true of Kenya. I was talking to an ex-mayor of Nairobi only yesterday, and he informed me that in Nairobi alone 60,000 houses are definitely needed now. When I say 60,000 houses, I mean houses for both the natives and for the white people. The natives are, of course, just as much citizens of Kenya, and were living there before the white population arrived. This, of course, is a massive problem, and there are great difficulties, but these difficulties must be surmounted in some way or other. In my view, there are certain things available which can be properly tapped and which will help to overcome

the present difficulties and those which might arise in the future.
For instance, it is my opinion that in this country we have over the last 10 years or so built up a unique organisation for providing housing accommodation for our people, and, of course, accommodation of every kind. The Ministry of Works have a great staff of experts, research people, architects, and professional men of all kinds. They must have a wealth of knowledge stored up which I should imagine it would be difficult to find in any commensurate degree throughout the rest of the civilised world. The same goes for our Ministry of Health, whose experts must now have been dealing for many years with the great housing problem in this country. There is also their connection with other people in the local areas where housing has been pushed forward on a large scale for a generation by the different local authorities. I doubt whether there is any similar organisation in any country in the world which has built up such a technique or which has such a long experience of this problem.
It is my view that research is of paramount importance. The Building Re. search Department has done a great deal of work in this country over the last few years, but I fear that when we have surmounted our housing problem in, perhaps, a few years' time, we shall tend to let that organisation disappear instead of maintaining it and using it for the benefit of all the people in our Colonial territories. We have a body of manufacturers of various kinds in this country who have been geared up into this great machine for providing our housing. I should imagine that they have very few rivals in any country in the world today.
I know from personal experience that a number of firms in this country have turned over their plants and staffs for experimenting in methods of prefabricating houses. When I say that, I do not mean the prefabs which we are used to seeing, and which we dismiss as something we do not wish to see again in the life of this country, but something better. I am thinking of the great improvements which have been made in the invention of new materials and so on for tackling our housing shortage. I am certain that we have enough experience in this country


to give a great boost to sending houses to all parts of the Colonial Empire. We could help not only the Colonies but also ourselves, because the supply of these prefabricated houses could be regarded as part of our exports. We could export thousands of houses specially made for tropical territories in Africa and Australia. I hope this suggestion will be considered in the near future when the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries come here for discussions without political leaders.
It seems to me that this is one of those jobs which could be placed in the hands of a Commonwealth Economic Council. All these resources should be put into one channel so that they could be drawn upon in such countries as Southern and Northern Rhodesia. We have a complex division of labour in this country. Many of these places overseas, with their small white populations and their indigenous populations, cannot hope to form a similar kind of machine. I would like to know whether there is any machinery available for these members of our Colonial Empire, and the Commonwealth if necessary, to make use of this complex knowledge and technique which we have built up. Is there any easy way of access by which the people concerned with these problems in these distant territories can consult London, or even come to London if necessary, so that they can be put in touch with the latest developments here? With those words I finish, because I realise that there are one or two other Members who wish to speak.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Follick: This question of housing is troubling the whole of the Empire at the moment. When I was in Gibraltar recently, the Governor explained to me that a large number of evacuees could not be brought back to Gibraltar on account of the housing shortage. They are getting on with the job there, but it is difficult on account of the space. They have erected two very big blocks of flats right in front of the Rock Hotel down on the flat. They are getting on with the job as best as they can, but with very small means, and building costs are exceptionally high. In Malta, which suffered terrific destruction during the war, they have been lucky enough to find all the plans of the houses

which were originally there. They can, therefore, proceed with the reconstruction of Malta and restore it in the original architectural style. That is a great thing, because many people go to Malta on account of its architectural beauty and the way in which Valetta has been built on the hills. Those plans having been discovered, some great beauty in the world will be replaced.
I should like to say a few words about the Bahamas. The difficulty there is the superstition of the natives. The highest proportion of consumption in the whole of the West Indies is in Nassau, and that is brought about very largely by the fact that the natives are afraid of evil spirits. They board up every opening in their houses at night and keep out the air. On the other hand, a great deal of harm has been done—and it is causing the Governor a lot of concern—by the flow of capital from this country to the Bahamas. He explained to me that houses that could have been bought before the war for about £2,000 are now being sold at £25,000. That is causing a disturbance to the economy of the Colony. He also related to me how Fort Montagu Hotel, which had been used by the American Air Force during the war, was sold by him for £150,000. This purchaser restored it and sold it to Farleigh for £380,000, who in turn sold it to Butlin for £450,000, all in the space of about six months. This sort of thing is destructive to the economy of that part of the world.
In Kenya, the shortage of houses is so great that the European population have often to live two, three or four miles outside Nairobi. It is not the same as in Europe, where we have good systems of communication. If one does not happen to have a car of one's own, one has to find some means of transport to get to Nairobi. In Tanganyika, they are getting on with the housing in connection with the groundnut scheme. They are even making their own bricks on the site, and have brickmaking machines. I have visited the houses which have been put up for the general staff of the groundnut scheme, and they are very nice houses indeed.
In Southern Rhodesia, the housing scarcity is so great that they have had to curtail emigration. A large part of this is brought about by the fact that there


are difficulties with the trade unions. They will not allow the native Africans to take over any of the bigger jobs, not even for their native houses. If contracts are given to the natives, they will not do the plumbing. Many of the materials are available but not the labour, unless we can employ native labour for the bigger jobs. In contrast, in Northern Rhodesia, in the copper belt, there are some of the finest layouts and plans to be found anywhere for the white population.
I say to the Minister that when he goes to those parts he should also look in on other people's colonies besides our own—the Portuguese, French and Belgian. By far the best layout for the African population—and by that I mean the native African population—is at Leopoldsville. There is a segregated area for the native African population, with wide avenues, good schools and good hospitals. The Governor of the Congo said to me that they put housing and health before education, because it was not much good providing education unless those who received it were sound in body and lived in good houses. I went to a native school in the Congo which was very well built, very airy and a credit to them. I also went into French Equatorial Africa, and although there is greater freedom for the native African population, there is nothing like such a fine layout for the housing schemes.
Curiously enough, where I did find very good housing for the native African population was in the Rand. There they look after the natives. I refused to go to any of the show places, but went down City Deep Mine where they do not usually allow anyone to go unless he is in the mining profession. I was surprised to see the beautiful kitchens and water closets. Now that we are getting such bad reports from South Africa, it should be pointed out that in the Rand, the native Africans are being well looked after. It is necessary that we should go to colonies of other nations to see how they are getting on with their jobs of housing, and see whether there is not something for us to learn in connection with our own housing problems. If we did that, it would be all to the good, and it would help to benefit our own native populations. Having solved their housing problem, we shall then have happier workers.

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish to ask a few questions about housing in Malaya. I ask them because I believe that bad housing conditions are the surest way of getting unrest and of breeding Communism. I have been rather alarmed by some of the reports from Malaya, not in regard to the way houses are being built in that part of the world, but in regard to the way they are being destroyed. There is a very interesting article in one of the Scottish papers today about Malaya, where there are many of our people. It states:
The Royal Air Force have made six attacks on bandit areas during the past week, four being in the Kuala Langat area of South Selangor, where at least eight bandits were reported killed. Security forces are continuing their sweep in this area.
I want to know, if the Royal Air Force is carrying out indiscriminate destruction of villages, what care is being taken of the civil population. I ask that question because I have studied with great interest what is going on in Malaya according to the columns of the "Daily Worker," the "Observer" and "The Times."
I read with very great alarm in the "Observer" recently that a native village had been burnt down as a reprisal for the murder of some British settlers. I am anxious that the lives of British planters should be safeguarded, but it is a very dangerous thing for police and soldiers to come along and set fire to a whole village, as described in the columns of the "Observer" by a well-known and reliable correspondent, Patrick Maitland. If that is to be done we shall have a repetition of the Black and Tan policy in Ireland. I urge the Colonial Secretary, who I know is a humane person, to do what he can to stop this policy of indiscriminate reprisals.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Bowles): While it is quite in Order for hon. Members to speak about any subject on an Adjournment Debate, the hon. Gentleman must understand, as I am sure he did, that this part of today is confined to Colonial housing conditions, and is nothing to do with bombing at all.

Mr. Hughes: I am trying to point out that the destruction of the houses was caused by the bombing and the burning


of the villages as reprisals. I believe that by this policy of bombing and burning the villages we are adding to the housing problems, because it results in making people homeless. What will happen to those people? What is happening is that, their houses are being burned and they are being driven into the jungle. That is creating in Malaya exactly the same kind of anti-British feeling as that which resulted in Ireland at the time of the Black and Tans.
I want the message of Great Britain to these backward territories to be one of hope and reconstruction. I do urge the Under-Secretary to do what he can to restrain this indiscriminate policy of reprisals, which results in turning people out of their homes into the jungle, and making them potential enemies of the British in India. I want to see the lives of the Scottish people who are out in Malaya safeguarded, and I believe that that can only be achieved with the good will of the local population. I ask that this policy of burning down villages in Malaya shall give way to a policy of reconstruction and the building of homes for the people, so that we bring hope to the people of this Colony.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington: Last night I was speaking in this House about housing problems in our own country, while today we are discussing housing conditions within the Commonwealth. This is a good thing, because, after all, as members of the British Commonwealth we must consider social problems everyhere in it, although we must have some priorities; I am very glad therefore that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) raised this subject.
It is quite clear that if there is to be any large-scale development, as we hope there will be, in various parts of the Commonwealth territories, then housing is a very important factor indeed. In the early days of the groundnut scheme very acute problems were caused by shortage of accommodation—problems which necessarily arise when entering a completely new area. The very important statement which the Under-Secretary made the evening before last in connection with meat supplies from the Colonies—seemed

to be missed by the Press, with the exception of the "News Chronicle." I was very disappointed, I may say, that even the "Daily Express" missed this statement, because I always understood that they took a keen interest in the development of the British Empire. In that statement my hon. Friend mentioned that the Minister of Agriculture had agreed, under centain conditions, to the importation of meat from our territories, and particularly from Africa. Now if this trade is developed, as I believe it can be, to be a very big thing in the years ahead, urgent consideration must be given to building operations, otherwise it will be impossible to get the people, both the indigenous people and the Europeans, to do the work we require done.
In view of the shortness of time, and because we are all anxious to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say, I will make but two other points. It would be wrong to assume that housing conditions in the Colonies—in Africa, for example—can be solved only by help from this country. A great deal can be done by the initiative of the people on the spot. When I was at Embu in Mount Kenya district I was particularly impressed by the District Commissioner there, who had made a special study of the problem. He developed clay pits and got the Africans to work them, so that they were building houses and hospitals without adding very much extra cost to the local administration; and they were providing first-class accommodation. I was very impressed with what was being done there, and I am certain it could be done in many other territories given the necessary drive and initiative.
Lastly, there is the question of craftsmen. We are getting to a position in which many of our territories create all sorts of difficulties when an attempt is made to bring in craftsmen. We seem to have a colour bar in reverse. If we are going to create a building industry in those territories we must have more craftsmen. I hope some of the territories will look at this problem and will facilitate the introduction of craftsmen who can help.

4.50 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Rees-Williams): I am sure we are all very much obliged to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Great


Yarmouth (Squadron-Leader Kinghorn) for raising this important subject on the Adjournment. He and other hon. Members have worked extremely hard in the last year or so in raising matters on the Adjournment of great interest and importance both to the Colonial territories and ourselves. The hon. Member for West Lewisham (Mr. Skeffington) is among that gallant band.
The problem today, as several Members have brought out, is one of an ever increasing population rightly demanding an ever increasing standard of living at a time when the number of skilled craftsmen available either locally or from this country is severely limited, when there is a great shortage of materials, particularly steel and cement, and when we still have to overcome prejudices such as have been mentioned here, and which unfortunately find a place in certain of the colonial territories.
There is also a matter which is very important and which has not been mentioned and that is the effect of insects. I remember when I was living in a bungalow in Malaya I had an Irishman as a companion. It was a case of an Irishman and a Welshman together, and we were a good pair. When my wife came out I left him and went to live in a bungalow of my own. Some months later I went back to see him, and as I walked along the road I was astonished to see lights blazing. When I got near the wooden bungalow I saw that he was sitting in the dining room at his meal without a wall around him. All he had was the floor and the roof and the supports of the bungalow. The insects had eaten the walls of that particular house. That incident shows the dangers and difficulties which faces anyone who is to avoid constructing houses with the wrong type of material.
We are trying to overcome these difficulties and to develop local resources of the right type to meet this housing shortage. We are also improving the designs and trying to economise in every way in the use of materials. British technicians are being supplied and quantities of cement and steel are being made available to a greater extent. There still remains great scope for imagination and initiative on the part of the people both in the Colonial Office and those engaged

in erecting buildings with types of material which have not been tried before.
I have been asked the question whether there is any machinery in this country for giving to the Colonial peoples the benefit of the scientific work which is carried on here. In reply I would say that we have a liaison officer in the building research station attached to the department of Scientific and Industrial Research, and it is his duty to keep in touch the whole time with the Colonial territories, advise them on the materials which can be used and which are available and to help them in every possible way. I am sure they are making use of this and other services available to them to an ever increasing extent.
As to the question of technicians, I cannot say that either I myself or my right hon. Friend, is entirely satisfied with the amount of use made of the available technicians in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lewisham has pointed out that one cannot have the large scale developments which we want in the Colonial territories to give people a better standard of life without considerable assistance from the technicians of this country. In the Colonial Office we find no difficulty at all in filling vacancies which occur from time to time, particularly for building foremen and inspectors, chargemen joiners, chargemen bricklayers, and chargemen plumbers. We have had a constant demand from artisans in this country, who are fired with the idea of going out to help their comrades in the lands overseas and we are recruiting them in sufficient numbers.
The difficulty is to persuade some people of the advantage of employing these excellent men. Let me give the House an example: I found in one colony that the African ex-Service men were being trained in Government workshops and centres provided for that purpose. After their training they went out and were entirely at the mercy of the market. There was not much market for them and they drifted back into the reserves. It was suggested that it would be a good idea if technicians were engaged in this country, people such as foreman builders and craftsmen, that the Government should do a good deal of work locally by direct labour, and should employ these ex-Service men as journeymen. That was done. We flew out 13


technicians and the result is not only that building got on at a much greater rate than before, but it was done at a very much cheaper cost. The Africans are also being much better trained in their position as journeymen. They have become craftsmen, whereas before they were left in the student state. In East Africa we are employing a large amount of direct labour. All the working operatives are, generally speaking, Africans, while technicians from this country are in supervisory posts.
I have been asked about the position of local machines and methods. I must say that I was impressed on the groundnut scheme by the way in which houses were being built from clay provided on the spot and prepared under the supervision of one European. Large numbers of houses were going up, at the hands of African technicians and labourers. Quite a simple bricklaying machine was used and it was an example of what can be done with limited machinery but with great profit.
All the Colonies have housing plans going on at various speeds. Nairobi impresses me as being one of the most efficient of all. I was much struck with the municipality in Nairobi. They have all the powers of a municipality in this country and certainly have great problems because they have to have three or four of everything. They have to have one European-type house, one Indian and one African, and they are tackling their problems in the right spirit. They have

at the present moment no fewer than 1,500 new houses being built to meet the tremendous increase in the population requiring housing.
Within the limited time at my disposal I cannot say very much more. With reference to prefabricated buildings I can say that suitable designs have not so far passed the scrutiny of our experts. We are looking into the whole question and when a really suitable design is prepared we shall certainly recommend it.
I cannot deal with Malaya. I would suggest to my hon. Friend who is interested in the matter that he comes to see me. He was quite wrong in what he assumed about Malaya. It is not the villages outside the jungle that have been destroyed but the squatters' huts in the jungle. The idea is to move people away from the jungle where they are preyed upon by bandits, and to take them to places where they can be properly housed. We have a really humane and humanitarian policy in Malaya.
I hope that I have given the House satisfaction. While we are not satisfied with the present position—I would not claim that for one moment—we are taking all possible measures to push on with this most important social amenity. Everything that we can do we shall do.

It being Five o'Clock, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House yesterday, till Tuesday, 26th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.